Appeal 2007-2864
Application 10/747,798
RAC is relied upon for describing
a clinical protocol for treating humans with premalignancies of
squamous epithelium in the oral cavity with an adenoviral
vector encoding p53 under control of the CMV promoter by
intramucosal injection in the area of the lesion followed by
topical application of a mouthwash comprising the vector (see
pages 10-11 especially).
(Answer 6.)
As with the prior rejection, the Examiner notes that RAC does not
disclose papillomavirus infection of the cells in the lesion (id.). The
Examiner relies of Oda and Flaitz as set forth in the rejection above (id.).
The Examiner asserts therefore “one of skill in the art of oral cancer would
have been aware that the treatment of Clayman described in RAC would
necessarily involve treatment of hyperplastic lesions that comprise HPV
infected cells.” (Id.)
With respect to claims 18, 33, and 54, which require that the
composition be formulated as a douche, the Examiner asserts that “a douche
is simply a jet of liquid applied to a part of the body; so a douche solution is
simply liquid.” (Id.)
Appellant essentially reiterates his arguments as to the rejection of
claims 1-12, 15, 18, 23-28, 33, 38-48, 51, and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
as being anticipated by Clayman as evidenced by Oda and Flaitz (Br. 10-11).
Thus, this rejection is affirmed for the reasons already set forth with respect
to that rejection.
Appellant also reiterates his arguments as to claims 4, 6, 18, 33, and
54, and the rejection of those claims is also affirmed for the reasons set forth
above.
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013