Appeal No. 2006-1270 Page 2
Application No. 10/222,614
122. The cell of claim 121, wherein the cell is a human cell.
123. The cell of claim 122, wherein the cell is a stem cell.
124. The cell of claim 123, wherein the cell is a hematopoietic stem cell.
Claims 123 and 124 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. In addition, Claims 114,
116 and 119-122 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over
the combination of Brenneman1 and Chandrasegaran.2 After careful review of
the record and consideration of the issues before us, we reverse both rejections.
DISCUSSION
Claims 123 and 124 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
“as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains
subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to
enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly
connected, to make and/or use the invention.” Examiner’s Answer, page 3.
1 Brenneman et al. (Brenneman), “Stimulation of intrachromosomal homologous recombination in
human cells by electroporation with site-specific endonucleases,” PNAS, Vol. 93, pp. 3608-12
(1996).
2 Chandrasegaran, U.S. Pat. No. 5,792,640, issued August 11, 1998.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007