Ex Parte Boutin - Page 4


              Appeal No. 2006-1879                                                                 Page 4                
              Application No. 10/010,114                                                                                 

              lipophilic long chain alkyl group, a fusogenic peptide, cholic acid, a cholesteryl group, or               
              a derivative) attached to a nitrogen of the polyamine component via specified linkages.                    
              2.  Enablement                                                                                             
                     The examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 17-52 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first                      
              paragraph, for nonenablement.  The examiner focused on the aspect of the claimed                           
              method that involves transferring a nucleic acid encoding a therapeutic protein into                       
              cells.1  The examiner concluded that the specification is enabling for a method of                         
              transferring a nucleic acid encoding a therapeutic protein into cells in vitro but is not                  
              enabling for the same method carried out in vivo.  See the Examiner’s Answer, page 3.                      
                     The examiner reasoned that “[t]he in vivo aspect of claims 1, 2, 5-9 and 17-52 is                   
              interpreted as gene therapy as the specification does not disclose a use for delivering a                  
              therapeutic protein other than for therapeutic purposes.”  Id.  The examiner noted that                    
              the instant application has an effective filing date of September 28, 1994,2 and cited                     
              several references as evidence that undue experimentation would have been required                         
              to successfully carry out gene therapy as of that date.  Id., pages 4-6.                                   
                     The examiner noted that the specification does not “disclose any particular DNA                     
              sequences that can be administered by applicant’s claimed methods” to treat any                            
              specific disease.  Id., page 6.  The examiner summarized the most relevant working                         
              examples:                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                         
              1 The examiner restricted the claims based on the type of protein encoded by the transferred nucleic acid. 
              See the restriction requirement mailed August 13, 2003.  Appellant elected the claims directed to a        
              method of transferring a nucleic acid encoding a therapeutic agent.  See the paper filed September 11,     
              2003.  The examiner has stated that “[b]ased on this election . . . claims 1, 2[,] 4-9, [and] 17-52, are   
              interpreted as methods of delivering a therapeutic agent using applicant’s novel multifunctional molecular 
              complex.”  Examiner’s Answer, pages 7-8.                                                                   
              2 The instant application claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 120 of the filing date of application serial    
              number 08/314,060, filed September 28, 1994.                                                               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007