Interference No. 105,188
Short v. Punnonnen
(Stemmer), “Searching Sequence Space,” Biotechnology, Vol. 13,
pp. 549-553 (June 1995)(Exh. 2052); Patten, et al. (Patten),
“Applications of DNA Shuffling to Pharmaceuticals and Vaccines,”
Current Opinion in Biotechnology, Vol. 8, pp. 724-733 (1997)
5 (Exh. 2053); and Hoogenboom, et al. (Hoogenboom), “Multi-subunit
proteins on the surface of filamentous phage: methodologies for
displaying antibody (Fab) heavy and light chains,” Nuc. Acid.
Res., Vol. 19, No. 15, pp. 4133-4137 (1991)(Exh. 2054)(Paper
No. 60, pp. 5-13). Punnonen filed a response to Short’s request
10 for rehearing on January 25, 2006 (Paper No. 191).
Short’s request for rehearing (Paper No. 188) alleged that
our decision overlooked and misapprehended teachings of the
Freeman and Short PCTs, the state of the art, the knowledge of
persons skilled in the art, and the full scope of subject matter
15 defined by Claim 47 of Punnonen’s Application 09/724,869 as of
its February 11, 1998, filing date. While Short’s request is no
longer before us, we have reviewed the patentability of
Punnonen’s Claim 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the combined
teachings of the prior art of record.
20 On reconsideration of the prior art of record, we conclude
that Claim 47 of Punnonen’s Application 09/724,869, filed
November 28, 2000, prima facie would have been obvious under
35 U.S.C. § 103 to persons having ordinary skill in the art in
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007