Appeal No. 2006-0735
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,036
29. In other words, the examiner argues that Dropulic teaches a localization signal (i.e.,
the HIV packaging signal) that inherently would cause the therapeutic agent to be
localized with the viral target in a “cellular or viral compartment of the cell.”
30. Unlike Hu, Dropulic does not indicate that the HIV-1 genome contains “all of
the natural HIV-1 structures and machinery” but for the therapeutic portion nor that it
“has the same ‘targeting’ or ‘homing’ specificity as the naturally occurring (wild
type) virus.” (‘See ‘038 at 11:41-45 and 65-67).
The 112 rejection
31. Claims 5 and 11 are dependent claims that require that the localization signal
comprises “a protein component”.
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 reproduced supra, while claim 11 depends from
either claim amended 6 or amended 9.
32. According to the examiner, claims 5 and 11 lack written descriptive support since the
disclosure “fails to describe the preparation, characterization, and use of a single
therapeutic agent comprising a proteinaceous signal sequence tethered to a
therapeutic nucleic acid” (Answer at 7).
33. The examiner states that “for purposes of this rejection, the Examiner is
interpreting the claim language to reasonably reference a nucleic acid and
proteinaceous component that have been chemically linked to one another.” (Answer
at 7-8).
34. According to the examiner, “...the disclosure fails to provide any structural or
functional guidance pertaining to suitable chemical linkages that can be employed in
the aforementioned invention” and “fails to provide even one working embodiment
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007