Appeal 2007-2864
Application 10/747,798
Claim 18 is drawn to the method of claim 1, wherein the composition
is formulated as a douche solution. Note that claim 18 does not require the
use of the solution as a douche, but merely for the composition to be
formulated as a douche solution. Thus, we agree that the composition of
Clayman, which comprises the vector in a liquid that can be swished in the
mouth, could also be used as a douche. Moreover, we also find that
Appellant has not presented any evidence to contradict that finding, and the
rejection is affirmed as to claims 18, 33, and 54.
As to claim 33, Appellant also argues that there “is no indication in
Clayman that any of the liquid formulations set forth therein are suitable for
vaginal delivery,” and that “the Examiner has cited no evidence to establish
that any liquid carrier set forth in Clayman is a carrier formulated for vaginal
delivery.” (Br. 9.)
Claim 33 is drawn to “[a] douche solution for inhibiting the growth of
a papillomavirus-transformed cell in a hyperplastic lesion in a subject
comprising (a) an expression cassette comprising a promoter operably linked
to a polynucleotide encoding a p53 polypeptide, and (b) a liquid carrier
formulated for vaginal delivery.” As discussed above, we agree with the
Examiner that the composition of Clayman, which comprises the vector in a
liquid that can be swished in the mouth, could also be used as a douche.
Thus, the rejection of claim 33 is affirmed.
Claims 1-12, 15, 18, 23-28, 33, 38-48, 51, and 54 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by RAC as evidenced by Oda and
Flaitz.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013