Appeal No. 2006-0735
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,036
17). We consider the entire reference in determining if the reference anticipates the
claimed invention. Hu states that the construct of the invention “retains all of the natural
HIV-1 structures and machinery except a part (or parts) of the genome has been turned
antisense by sequence inversion”. (Hu at 11:42-45). Thus, Hu acknowledges that its
constructs are only partially made up of the therapeutic agent, with the remainder being
the natural HIV-1 structures and machinery.
Finally, patentee argues that Hu does “not teach or suggest [the claimed]
localization signal since the therapeutic agent claimed by patentee would be active even
in the absence of a localization agent” while the therapeutic agent of Hu would not.
(Brief at 13). Patentee does not explain why we should limit the term “therapeutic agent”
as it appears in patentee’s claims to an agent that is active in the absence of a localization
agent, especially given that we must give the term its broadest reasonable interpretation
in view of the specification. Thus, this argument also is unpersuasive.
We AFFIRM the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, and 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 6,107,062 to Hu.
Dropulic
The examiner rejected claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as
being anticipated by a reference to “Dropulic, B., et al., 1991" that is described by the
examiner as “Abstracts of papers presented at the 1991 meeting on RNA TUMOR
VIRUSES, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York”.
(Dropulic).
It is the examiner’s position that Dropulic anticipates the claimed invention
because Dropulic “disclose[s] the inhibition of HIV-1 replication utilizing modified HIV-
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007