Appeal No. 2004-0456
Application No. 08/913,699
adenoviral vector system and administered in the bloodstream of an individual that it
would be expected to be expressed in an effective amount or at a level which would be
sufficient to stimulate cholesterol efflux. While we might agree with the examiner that it
would have been obvious to try to express or “evaluate the promise of” LCAT in the
adenoviral vector system of Benoit to achieve such an effect, we do not find the cited
references support a reasonable expectation of success at achieving the result of
cholesterol efflux stimulation.
Nor do we find that Perricaudet or Jolly overcome the deficiencies of the primary
combination of Benoit, Baer and McLean. The rejection of claims 38 and 43-46 and 48-
56 for obviousness is reversed.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 38, 43-45, 48-50, 55 and 56 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), as
obvious over Benoit in view of Baer and McLean; claims 38, 43, 45, 46 and 51 under 35
U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Benoit in view of Baer and McLean in further view of
Perricaudet; and claims 38 and 52-54 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), as obvious over Benoit
in view of Baer and McLean in further view of Jolly are reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007