Appeal No. 2004-1259
Application No. 09/832,355
Souttou, et al., “Pleiotrophin Induces Angiogenesis: Involvement of the
Phosphoinositide-3 Kinase but Not the Nitric Oxide Synthase Pathways,” J. of Cell.
Phys., Vol. 187, pp. 59-64 (2001)
E. Papadimitriou, et al., “Endothelial Cell Proliferation induced by HARP: Implication of
N. or C terminal peptides,” Biochem. Biophys. Res. Comm., Vol. 274, pp. 242-248
(2000)
R. Choudhuri, et al., “An angiogenic role for the neurokines, midkine and pleiotrophin in
tumorigenesis,” Can. Res., Vol. 57, pp. 1814-1819 (1997)
Imai, et al., “Osteoblast Recruitment and Bone Formation Enhanced by Cell Matrix
associated Heparin-binding Growth-associated Molecule (HB-GAM),” J. Cell Biol., Vol.
143, No. 4, pp. 1113-1128 (1998)
T.F. Deuel, et al., “Pleiotrophin: A Cytokine with Diverse Functions and a Novel
Signaling Pathway,” Arch. Biochem. Biophys., Vol. 397, No. 2, pp. 162-171 (2002)
Grounds of Rejection
Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as containing
subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to
reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the
application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, 12, 16-19, 30-41 and 43-46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph for lack of enablement and lack of written description.
Claims 1-4, 9, 16-19, 32-34, 39-40 and 43-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(a), as anticipated by Davis.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007