Appeal No. 2007-0531 Page 15
Application No. 10/341,679
Claims 7, 21 and 23
Claims 7, 21 and 23 are now free from rejection.
Claim 7 is depends from and further limits the method of claim 1 to require
that the multiple injections are administered simultaneously. The combination of
references set forth above does not teach simultaneous injections.
Claim 21 ultimately depends from and further limits the number of multiple
injections in the method of claim 1 to comprise at least 15 injections. In our
opinion, while the combination of references relied upon above teach injections
for an extended period, they do not place a numeric value on the number of
injections that would be included in this period of administration.
Claim 23 ultimately depends from and further limits the DNA of claim 1 to
encode an angiogenic peptide and an angiogenic peptide receptor. We
recognize Examiner’s reliance on Ullrich to teach the angiogenic peptide receptor
Flk-1. Answer, page 13. We find, however, that Ullrich does not teach the use of
Flk-1 nucleic acid to induce angiogenesis in vivo. To the contrary, Ullrich
teaches the use of nucleic acids of Flk-1 to inhibit the translation of the receptor.
See e.g., Ullrich, column 18, lines 37-45. Accordingly, we find no suggestion to
combine Ullrich with the combination of references set forth above.
Therefore, in the event of further examination before the examiner, we
encourage the examiner to take a step back and consider whether any available
prior art could be applied against these claims either alone or in combination.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013