Appeal 2007-2864
Application 10/747,798
Claims 1-14, 19-29, 38-50, and 55-60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Nielsen as evidenced by Oda and Flaitz. As
Appellant does not argue claims 2, 3, 5, 7-14, 19-29, 38-50, and 55-60,
separately, they stand or fall with claim 1.
Neilsen is relied upon for teaching
the treatment of cancer in general, including cervical cancer and
head and neck cancer, by a combination of p53 gene therapy
and gemcitabine chemotherapy. The p53 gene can be delivered
by non-viral lipid-based plasmid delivery or by delivery in a
viral vector based on adenovirus, AAV, retrovirus, or vaccinia
virus. The p53 coding sequence in the vector may be under
control of a constitutive or tumor specific promoter. Nielsen
discloses topical delivery of the vector to the location of a
tumor, including to the surgical wound resulting from tumor
resection. Pharmaceutical compositions comprising the vector
include compositions for transmucosal or transdermal delivery
for treatment of tumors in the mouth, nasal mucosa, vagina and
uterus are disclosed. Disclosed compositions include emulsions
(i.e. cream, ointment or salve), aerosols, tablets, lozenges and
suppositories.
(Answer 7.)
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. 11-12).
Thus, the rejection as to claims 1-3, 5, 7-14, 19-29, 38-50, and 55-60 is
affirmed for the reasons set forth with respect to that rejection.
As to claims 4 and 6, Appellant argues that Neilsen cannot anticipate
claims 4 and 6 because “it does not expressly or inherently disclose ‘a
keratinocyte,’ (claim 4), or ‘a skin cell’ (claim 6).” (Br. 12.) Appellant’s
attention is directed to the response to the arguments with respect to the
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013