Appeal No. 2004-2202 Page 2
Application No. 10/016,324
Mihalko et al. (Mihalko) WO 86/06959 Dec. 04, 1986
Klibanov et al. (Klibanov) “Long-circulating Liposomes : Development and
Perspectives,” Journal of Liposome Research, Vol. 2, No. 3 pp. 321-324 (1992)
Gao et al . (Gao) “A Novel Cationic Liposome Reagent For efficient Transfection
of Mammalian Cells,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications,” Vol.
179, No. 1 pp. 280-285 (1991)
Claims 29-31, 33-37, and 39-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Marshall.
Claims 29, 30, 34-37, 39-41, 44-49, and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious in view of Mihalko and Klibanov.
Claims 29-31, 33-37, and 39-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
in view of Marshall, either alone or combined with Mihalko.
Claims 31-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Marshall, either alone or combined with Mihalko, and further in view of Gao.
Claims 49-57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Mihalko, Klibanov, Chestnut, DeFrees, and “applicant’s statements of prior art.”
We reverse all of the rejections.1
Background
The specification discloses “a fusogenic liposome composition for fusion with a
target membrane,” such as the plasma membrane of a cell. Page 9. “The composition
includes liposomes . . . composed of vesicle-forming lipids. . . . The liposome has an
1 None of the rejections set out in the Examiner’s Answer includes claims 38, 58, or 59, even though the
examiner has stated that all of claims 29-59 have been rejected. See, e.g., the Office action mailed
March 27, 2003. The status of claims 38, 58, and 59 is therefore unclear. Since we are reversing all of
the rejections on appeal, however, it makes no difference whether claims 38, 58, and 59 were
inadvertently omitted from one or more of the rejections.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007