Interference No. 105,188
Short v. Punnonnen
before the effective filing dates of both Punnonen’s involved
application and Short’s involved patent.
We conclude that the method defined by Claim 47 of
Punnonen’s involved application prima facie would have been
5 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 to a person having ordinary skill
in the art on the effective filing date of Punnonnen’s involved
application in view of the combined teachings of the Freeman PCT,
the Short PCT, and Stemmer. Our conclusion newly emphasizes
Stemmer’s view of the knowledge, skill and state of the art at
10 the pertinent time. We emphasize our view that the Freeman PCT
describes, and/or reasonably would have suggested, all aspects of
a method encompassed by Claim 47 of Punnonen’s involved
application to persons having ordinary skill in the art but for
the limitation “whereby optimization is achieved by recursive
15 sequence recombination” (Claim 47, Paper No. 181, p. 18).
However, as we have indicated above, we find in the Freeman PCT
suggestions to optimize the modulatory effect on an immune
response sought by the methods taught in the Freeman PCT by use
of mutation procedures, including homologous recombination and
20 point or sequence mutations, followed by screening, recycling
and/or repeating the procedures for optimum results. In light of
the knowledge and skill in the art at the pertinent time, as
evident from the disclosures of the Short PCT and Stemmer, the
-24-
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007