Ex Parte Boutin - Page 5


              Appeal No. 2006-1879                                                                 Page 5                
              Application No. 10/010,114                                                                                 

                     Example 11 teaches the expression of lacZ when a plasmid comprising a                               
                     β-galactosidase gene complexed to a transfer moiety of the invention is                             
                     injected into mouse thigh muscle. . . .  Example 12 teaches the finding of                          
                     hepatitis B [virus] surface antigen in the blood [of] mice injected i.v. with a                     
                     multifunctional molecular complex comprising a plasmid containing a                                 
                     hepatitis B virus surface antigen gene complexed to a transfer moiety of                            
                     the invention.                                                                                      
              Id., pages 6-7.  The examiner found that these examples did not provide sufficient                         
              guidance, however, because “in neither case does the expression of the delivered gene                      
              result in an alleviation of a symptom of any disease.”  Id., page 7.                                       
                     Appellant argues that “[s]ince the claims do not require a therapeutic effect,                      
              Applicant need not demonstrate such an effect in order to enable the claimed subject                       
              matter.”  Appeal Brief, page 4.  Appellant argues that he “need[ ] only establish that the                 
              application enable[s] one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use a method for                        
              transfer[ring] nucleic acid compositions to cells . . . without undue experimentation.”  Id.               
              Appellant argues that the references cited by the examiner are not applicable because                      
              they describe different methods of delivering nucleic acids to cells.  Id., page 5.  Finally,              
              Appellant relies on a declaration submitted under 37 CFR § 1.132, which is said to                         
              provide additional examples of in vivo transfer of nucleic acids using the claimed                         
              method.  See id., pages 7-9                                                                                
                     The examiner bears the initial burden of showing that a claimed method is not                       
              enabled.  See In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561-62, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir.                        
              1993) (“[T]he PTO bears an initial burden of setting forth a reasonable explanation as to                  
              why it believes that the scope of protection provided by that claim is not adequately                      
              enabled by the description of the invention provided in the specification of the                           
              application.”).                                                                                            





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007