Appeal No. 2005-0412 Page 2
Application No. 09/682,968
The reference relied upon by both appellants and the examiner is:
(Darnell) Molecular Cell Biology 59-66 (2nd ed., James Darnell et al. eds.,
Scientific American Books, 1990)
GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being
based on an insufficient disclosure to support or enable the full scope of the
claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite in the recitation of the term “effector”.1
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,319,893.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, and under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting. Having disposed of all claims on appeal we do not reach the merits of
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
1 We recognize the examiner’s comment (Answer, page 6) “that ‘hypoglycemia’ is misspelled.”
We find, however, no discussion of this in either the Brief, or the “Response to Argument” section
of the Answer. However, upon review of the prosecution history, we note that the misspelling of
“hypoglycemia” was corrected in a claim amendment dated October 9, 2002. Accordingly, it
appears that the examiner’s comment with regard to the misspelling of “hypoglycemia” is a
typographical error.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007