Appeal No. 2006-0735
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,036
The complete paper that was presented at the 1991 meeting is not relied upon by
the examiner in making the rejection and does not appear to be before us.1
25. The copy of the one page abstract on the record before us is not dated, however,
there appears to be no dispute that the publication date of the article is such that it
qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
26. The entirety of the Dropulic abstract is set out below:
Ribozymes are catalytic RNA molecules that display specific cleavage reactions
to complementary RNAs. They are potentially useful as therapeutic agents
against HIV. We have designed ribozymes targeted to various regions of the
HIV-1 genomic RNA. When T-cells that are chronically infected with HIV-1 are
co-cultured with cloned packaging cells producing amphotropic ribozyme-
containing retrovirus, a suppression of HIV-1 replication is seen. We have also
generated two types of ribozymes that have been integrated into the HIV genome
at the nef gene. These two types of ribozymes are a cis self cleaving RNA
sequence and a RNA sequence that is capable of cleaving in trans the HIV-1 U5
RNA. In both cases, replication of the ribozyme-containing HIV-1 was
dramatically reduced. These results suggest that catalytic RNAs can be designed
to specifically destroy HIV-1 RNA.
27. The examiner notes that Dropulic reference teaches the incorporation of a nucleic
acid therapeutic agent (i.e., a ribozyme) into the nef coding region of the HIV-1
genome. (Answer at 4).
28. The examiner argues that “[t]he HIV-1 genome inherently contains an RNA
packaging/encapsidation signal (ψ) that localizes the viral genome to the inner surface
of the cytoplasmic cell membrane prior to encapsidation into the virion..” (Answer at
4).
1 Patentee has submitted a paper that it says “disclose[s] the details of the Dropulic
abstract”, i.e., Dropulic et al., Journal of Virology, 66:1432 (1992). but has provided no
evidence that this is the paper presented at the 1991 meeting. (Brief at 15). In any event,
the examiner has not rejected the claims over the complete paper-only over an abstract of
the paper presented at the meeting.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007