Interference No. 105,136 Paper 62
Wang v. Imler Page 16
judgment against Wang as to priority. 37 CFR § 1.652.9
Rule 659 recommendation
37 CFR § 1.659(a) states the following:
Should the Board have knowledge of any ground for rejecting any
application claim not involved in the judgment of the interference, it may
include in its decision a recommended rejection of the claim. Upon
resumption of ex parte prosecution of the application, the examiner shall
be bound by the recommendation and shall enter and maintain the
recommended rejection unless an amendment or showing of facts not
previously of record is filed which, in the opinion of the examiner,
overcomes the recommended rejection.
In view of prior art that was submitted by Wang in its preliminary motion 1
(copies attached) and in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.659(a) the following rejection is
recommended:
Claims 66 and 67 of Imler's '143 application (FF 34) are rejected under 35 USC
§ 103(a) as being obvious in view of Berkner II (FF 35 (b)) and Bridge II (FF 35(d)).
Berkner II describes the use of adenoviruses as expression vectors. Berkner II
states that "[g]eneration of helper-independent Ad recombinants can be accomplished
by insertion of heterologous sequences into several different regions of the Ad
genome....Substitution of the E1 or E4 regions produces conditional recombinants
which can be propagated in complementing cell lines". (FF 42). Berkner II describes
9 As noted in the order entered 23 December 2003, "[n]o order to show
cause is necessary in this situation because the positions of the parties are clear
enough" (Paper 37 at 1-2).
16
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007