Ex Parte 6573099 et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 29, 2010

90007247 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 29, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
90/007,247 10/04/2004 6573099 0687/74768 6310
23432 7590 09/29/2010
COOPER & DUNHAM, LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
20th Floor
NEW YORK, NY 10112
EXAMINER
PONNALURI, PADMASHRI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3991
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2010 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
90/008,096 05/18/2006 6573099 0687/74768 4110
23432 7590 09/29/2010
COOPER & DUNHAM, LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
20th Floor
NEW YORK, NY 10112
EXAMINER
PONNALURI, PADMASHRI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3991
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2010 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL
RESEARCH ORGANISATION
Appellant and Patent Owner
____________

Appeal 2010-006827
Reexamination Control 90/007,247 and 90/008,096
Patent 6,573,099 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and
JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the "MAIL DATE"
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2010-006827
Reexamination Control 90/007,247 and 90/008,096
Patent 6,573,099 B2

2
This is a decision on the appeal by the Patent Owner of U.S. Patent
No. 6,573,099 from the Patent Examiner’s rejections of claims 4-7 and 10-
24 in an ex parte reexamination proceeding. The Board’s jurisdiction for
this appeal is under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b), 134(b), and 306. We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
U.S. Patent No. 6,573,099 (hereinafter “the ‘099 patent”) issued June
3, 2003. The named inventor is Michael Wayne Graham. A First Request
for Ex Parte Reexamination of claims 1-22 of the ‘099 patent was filed by a
Third-Party Requester, Nucleonics, Inc. (“Requester”) on October 4, 2004,
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 302-307 and 37 C.F.R § 1.510 (“First Request”).
Reexamination was sought on the basis of several prior art publications.
A Second Request for Ex Parte Reexamination was filed by
Nucleonics on May 18, 2006, in light of prior art discovered after filing of
the First Request and not considered during prosecution of the ‘099 patent
(Second Req. 1). The cited publications included Szyf, Zamecnik, Urdea,
and the Fire published patent application, which claimed benefit to a
provisional application filed December 23, 2007 (Second Req. 13). Szyf,
Zamecnik, and the Fire published patent application are cited in the
rejections on appeal in this reexamination proceeding.
Reexamination was granted by the Examiner in response to both the
First and Second Requests (Order Granting Request for Reexamination,
mailed Dec. 7, 2004; Order Granting Request for Reexamination, mailed
July 20, 2006). In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.565(c), the reexamination
proceedings were merged (Decision merging reexamination proceedings,
mailed Oct. 26, 2006). In a Final Rejection dated November 26, 2008,
Appeal 2010-006827
Reexamination Control 90/007,247 and 90/008,096
Patent 6,573,099 B2

3
patented claims 4-7 and 10-28 were rejected. The rejection was appealed
and an Appeal Brief was filed July 27, 2009, by the owner of the patent at
the time the Brief was filed, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation (hereinafter “CSIRO”) (App. Br. 8 (Appeal Brief,
filed Jul. 27, 2009)).
The appealed claims are directed to double-stranded DNA constructs
and methods of transfecting animal cells with the constructs. The constructs
produce double-stranded RNA when introduced (“transfecting”) into a cell.
The double-stranded RNA has strands complementary to a target gene in the
animal cell, and when expressed from the construct, the RNA delays or
represses expression of the target gene. In other words, the double-stranded
RNA can be used to turn a gene of interest off in an animal cell.
Claims 4-7 and 10-24 are pending and stand rejected. The rejection is
appealed. Claims 1-3, 8, and 9 were cancelled (App. Br. 10). Claims 25-28,
were previously rejected, but now are allowed (Ans. 3).
The Examiner rejected the claims as follows:
Claims 5-7 and 11-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of
the Fire patent2 or Fire patent application publication3 and Szyf,4 Zamecnik,5
and Tang6 (Ans. 4); and

2 U.S. Patent 6,506,559 B1, issued Jan. 14, 2003.
3 US 2003/0056235 A1, published Mar. 20, 2003.
4 U.S. Patent 5,578,716, issued Nov. 26, 1996.
5 WO 97/11170, published Mar. 27, 1997.
6 Jin yan Tang, Jamal Temsamani, and Sudhir Agrawal, “Self-stabilized
antisense oligodeoxynucleotide phosphorothioates: properties and anti-HIV
Activity, 21 Nucleic Acids Res., 11, 2729-2735 (1993).
Appeal 2010-006827
Reexamination Control 90/007,247 and 90/008,096
Patent 6,573,099 B2

4
Claims 4, 6, and 10-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of
the Fire patent or Fire patent application publication and Szyf, Zamecnik,
and Tang (or Szyf, Bissler,7 and Chou8), and Conrad.9
Claims 4 and 5 were amended during the reexamination proceeding.
Claims 4 and 5 are representative and read as follows (underling and
brackets show the claim amendments):
Claim 4: An isolated [genetic] double-stranded DNA construct
which is capable of delaying, repressing or otherwise reducing
the expression of a target gene in an animal cell which is
transfected with said [genetic] double-stranded DNA construct,
wherein said [genetic] double-stranded DNA construct
comprises at least two identical copies of a structural gene
sequence and each identical copy of said structural gene
sequence is separately placed under the control of a promoter
which is operable in said cell, and wherein said structural gene
sequence comprises a nucleotide sequence which is
substantially identical to [at least] a region of said target gene,
wherein at least one identical copy of said structural gene
sequence is placed operably in the sense orientation under the
control of an individual promoter sequence, and wherein at least
one other identical copy of said structural gene sequence is
placed operably in the antisense orientation under the control of
another individual promoter sequence.

Claim 5: An isolated [genetic] double-stranded DNA construct
which is capable of delaying, repressing or otherwise reducing
the expression of a target gene in an animal cell which is
transfected with said [genetic] double-stranded DNA construct,

7 John J. Bissler, “DNA Inverted Repeats and Human Disease,” 3 Frontiers
in Bioscience, 408-418 (1998).
8 Shan-Ho Chou, Ko-Hsin Chin and Andrew H.-J. Wang, Unusual DNA
duplex and hairpin Motifs, 31 Nucleic Acids Research 10, 2461-2474
(2003).
9 U.S. Patent 6,054,299, issued Apr. 25, 2000.
Appeal 2010-006827
Reexamination Control 90/007,247 and 90/008,096
Patent 6,573,099 B2

5
wherein said [genetic] double-stranded DNA construct
comprises at least two identical copies of a structural gene
sequence, wherein said structural gene sequence comprises a
nucleotide sequence which his substantially identical to [at
least] a region of said target gene, and wherein said at least two
identical copies of said structural gene sequence are placed
operably under the control of a single promoter sequence which
is operable in said cell, wherein at least one identical copy of
said structural gene sequence is placed operably in the sense
orientation under the control of said promoter sequence,
wherein at least one other identical copy of said structural gene
sequence is placed operably in the antisense orientation under
the control of said promoter sequence, and wherein said at least
one identical copy of said structural gene sequence that is
placed in the sense orientation relative to said promoter and said
at least one identical copy of said structural gene sequence that
is placed in the antisense orientation relative to said promoter
are spaced from each other by a nucleic acid stuffer fragment.

OBVIOUSNESS OVER FIRE PATENT OR FIRE PATENT
APPLICATION, AND SZYF, ZAMECNIK, AND TANG

Claims 5-7 and 11-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious in view of the Fire patent or published Fire patent application, and
Szyf, Zamecnik, and Tang.
Issue
Would it have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
have made the construct of claim 5 by modifying Fire’s single self-
complementary RNA with a stuffer fragment, as taught by each of Szyf,
Zamecnik, and Tang?

Appeal 2010-006827
Reexamination Control 90/007,247 and 90/008,096
Patent 6,573,099 B2

6
Legal Principle
“An obviousness determination requires that a skilled artisan would
have perceived a reasonable expectation of success in making the invention
in light of the prior art.” Amgen, Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., 580
F.3d 1340, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Facts (“F”)
Fire Provisional Application10
1. Fire discloses that double-stranded RNA inhibits gene expression.
Fire teaches that the double-stranded RNA structure used to inhibit gene
expression “may be formed by a single self-complementary RNA strand or
multiple complementary strands.” (Fire, p. 6, ll. 18-20).
2. “RNA may be synthesized either in vivo or in vitro . . . . For
transcription from a transgene in vivo or an expression vector, a regulatory
region (e.g., promoter, enhancer, silencer) is used to transcribe the RNA
strand(s).” (Id. at 7, ll. 11-15.) (See also id. at 11, ll. 18-23; 12, ll. 10-12.)
3. Fire teaches:
The present invention differs from antisense-mediated
interference in both approach and effectiveness . . . .
Double-stranded RNA-mediated inhibition has
advantages both in the stability of the material to be
delivered and the concentration required for effective
inhibition. Below, we disclose that in the model organism
C. elegans, the present invention is at least 100-fold more

10 Hereinafter “Fire.” The disclosure of the Fire provisional application,
filed Dec. 23, 1997, is relied upon as prior art because its filing date is
before the March 20, 1998 priority date and the June 19, 1998 United States
application filing date of the ‘099 patent.

Appeal 2010-006827
Reexamination Control 90/007,247 and 90/008,096
Patent 6,573,099 B2

7
effective than an equivalent antisense approach (i.e.,
dsRNA [double-stranded RNA] is at least 100-fold more
effective than the injection of purified antisense RNA in
reducing gene expression). These comparisons also
demonstrate that inhibition by double-stranded RNA
must occur by a mechanism distinct from antisense
interference.
(Id. at p. 4, ll. 11-22.)
4. Fire teaches that the double-stranded RNA structure was a “critical
feature” for inhibiting gene expression (id. at p. 14, ll. 8-9, 22-25).

Szyf
5. Szyf describes antisense oligonucleotides complementary to
mRNA or double-stranded DNA that encodes mammalian DNA methyl
transferase (Szyf, Abstract).
6. The oligonucleotides can comprise ribonucleotides and
deoxyribonucleotides (id. at col. 4, ll. 4-10; col. 5, l. 65 to col. 6, l. 21).
7. In one embodiment, Szyf describes modified oligonucleotides self-
stabilized “by having a self-complementary region that hybridizes
intramolecularly with the oligonucleotide to form an exonuclease resistant
hairpin-like structure” (id. at col. 6, ll. 48-51).
8. “Modified oligonucleotides according to this embodiment of the
invention are generally characterized by having two regions: a DNA MeTase
hybridizing region and a self-complementary region. The DNA MeTase
hybridizing region has a nucleotide sequence that is complementary to an
essential nucleic acid sequence of DNA MeTase.” (Id. at col. 6, 52-57).
9. “In this embodiment, the oligonucleotide is stabilized, i.e.,
rendered resistant to exonucleolytic degradation by base-pairing between the
Appeal 2010-006827
Reexamination Control 90/007,247 and 90/008,096
Patent 6,573,099 B2

8
target hybridizing region and the self-complementary region and/or by base-
pairing between complementary sequences within the self-complementary
region.” (Id. at col. 6, ll. 59-64).
10. “When the oligonucleotide encounters a DNA MeTase nucleic
acid molecule having a complementary nucleic acid sequence, base-pairing
between the DNA MeTase hybridizing region and the self-complementary
region of the oligonucleotide is disrupted and replaced by base-pairing
between the DNA MeTase hybridizing region of the oligonucleotide and the
complementary nucleic acid sequence of the nucleic acid molecule.” (Id. at
col. 6, l. 64 to col. 7, l. 4.)
11. “Either the hairpin structure or the hammer-like structure will
presumably have loops of 4 or more nucleotides resulting from non-base-
paired nucleotides. The number of base-pairs to be formed by intramolecular
hybridization involving the self-complementary region may vary, but should
be adequate to maintain a double-stranded structure so that the 3' end is not
accessible to endonucleases.” (Id. at col. 7, ll. 29-37.)
12. Szyf describes an expression vector to express the antisense in
cells.

Zamecnik
13. Zamecnik describes antisense oligonucleotides that are
oligoribonucleotides or oligodeoxyribonucleotides (Zamecnik, at p. 5, ll. 24-
27).
14. Zamecnik teaches that “self-stabilized or hairpin
oligonucleotides” can be used having “a sequence at the 5’ and/or 3’ end
which is capable of folding over and forming a duplex with itself. The
Appeal 2010-006827
Reexamination Control 90/007,247 and 90/008,096
Patent 6,573,099 B2

9
duplex region, which is preferably at least 4-6 bases joined by a loop of 3-6
bases, stabilizes the oligonucleotide against degradation.” (Id. at p. 8, ll. 2-
5).

Tang
15. Tang describes self-stabilized oligodeoxynucleotides with hairpin
loops at their 3’ ends which showed increased resistance to degradation
(Tang, Abstract).

Riggs Declaration
16. A declaration by Dr. Arthur D. Riggs, a professor of biology at
the Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope, was executed on February
25, 2009, in support of the nonobviousness of the claims (hereinafter, “Riggs
Decl.”).
Analysis
Claim 5 is directed to a double-stranded DNA construct with a single
promoter in which an identical copy of a sense region of a target gene and an
identical copy of an antisense region of the same target gene are “placed
operably under control” of the promoter. The sense and antisense
orientations are with respect to the single promoter. The sense and antisense
copies “are spaced apart from each other by a nucleic acid stuffer fragment.”
The Examiner found that Fire taught a single self-complementary
RNA strand for inhibiting gene expression and that the RNA could be made
in vivo with an expression vector comprising a promoter sequence (Ans. 4-5;
F1 and F2). A self-complementary RNA would be understood, in light of
Appeal 2010-006827
Reexamination Control 90/007,247 and 90/008,096
Patent 6,573,099 B2

10
Fire’s disclosure, to mean an RNA with sense and antisense sequences of the
same gene sequence oriented in such a way that it forms a double-stranded
RNA structure when the sense and antisense sequences hybridize together
(Ans. 5). A double-stranded RNA structure would be manufactured when
the sense and antisense orientations of the same gene sequence relative to a
single promoter sequence were inserted into a double-standed DNA
construct that was subsequently expressed in a cell.
The Examiner determined that the difference between Fire and claim
5 is that Fire did not expressly describe a “stuffer fragment” separating the
sense and antisense sequences as recited in claim 5 (Ans. 5). However, the
Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to persons of ordinary
skill in the art to have utilized a stuffer fragment in Fire “in order to facilitate
and stabilize duplex oligonucleotide formation and further reduce target
[gene] expression as taught by” the Szyf, Zamecnik, and Tang publications
(id. at 5-6).
The Examiner’s position, in a nutshell, is that it would have been
obvious to have added a stuffer fragment to a self-complementary RNA in
order to create a “hairpin” structure. A hairpin is a nucleic acid structure
with a stem and loop, where the stem is a double-stranded region formed by
two complementary nucleotide sequences hybridized together (the sense and
antisense) and the loop is a single-stranded nucleic acid region between the
two complementary sequences. The entire structure resembles a hairpin (or
“bobby pin”) used to hold hair in place. According to the Examiner, a
hairpin structure would have made Fire’s double-stranded RNA more stable,
giving persons of ordinary skill in the art reason to have made it. (Ans. 15.)
Appeal 2010-006827
Reexamination Control 90/007,247 and 90/008,096
Patent 6,573,099 B2

11
The Examiner did not meet the burden of establishing prima facie
obviousness of claim 5. The Examiner’s rationale as to why a hairpin
structure would have been desirable was based on antisense technology.
Antisense technology involves the hybridization of a single-stranded
oligonucleotide to a target nucleic acid (such a a gene) in a cell. As argued
by Appellant, Fire’s method of using double-stranded RNA to inhibit gene
expression was expressly recognized by Fire as occurring by a mechanism
distinct from single-stranded antisense gene technology, the type described
in the cited Szyf, Zamecnik, and Tang publications (F3).
Consistently, Dr. Arthur Riggs, a scientist, testified in a declaration
that “antisense RNA technology . . . was another approach to gene silencing
that was technically different from interference described by Fire.” (Riggs
Decl. ¶ 8.) For this reason, Dr. Riggs testified that “it was clear that the
interference described by Fire et al. was not working via an antisense
mechanism, thus invalidating the theoretical parallel drawn by the
Examiner” (id.) in relying on the anti-sense technologies of the Szyf,
Zamecnik, and Tang publications.
Fire’s objective was to create a double-stranded RNA because that
particular RNA structure had been determined to be a critical feature for
inhibiting gene expression (F4). The antisense technology cited by the
Examiner relied on a single-stranded structure to inhibit gene expression, a
mechanism and structure that Fire recognized was different from his own.
The description in the prior art of the mechanism of the antisense technology
is consistent with this finding (F7 and F10).
Appeal 2010-006827
Reexamination Control 90/007,247 and 90/008,096
Patent 6,573,099 B2

12
For the following independent reasons, we find that the Examiner did
not provide an adequate reasoning to modify Fire with a loop (the “stuffer”)
or that such modification would have been reasonably expected to add
greater stability to the double-stranded RNA.
First, as discussed above, Fire’s RNAs are already double-stranded,
not single-stranded, as in all three of the cited antisense publications. Thus,
Dr. Rigg’s testimony about the lack of a “theoretical parallel” between Fire
and antisense technology is reasonable in view of the structural differences
between the two constructs. Consequently, the evidence does not support
the Examiner’s position that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have
found the antisense teachings of the Szyf, Zamecnik, and Tang publications
pertinent to Fire’s double-stranded RNA.
Second, there is no evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have reasonably expected that the proposed modification of Fire’s
double-stranded RNA would have resulted in added stability as asserted by
the Examiner. Fire stated that double-stranded RNA was advantageous as
compared to antisense RNA because of “the stability of the material.” (F3).
Fire also found double-stranded RNA to be a hundredfold more effective
than antisense RNA (id.). Accordingly, there was no reason to have added a
loop structure to the already double-stranded RNA to increase its stability,
when the latter was recognized as more stable and more effective than
antisense RNA.
Third, double-stranded RNA technology for inhibiting gene
expression was nascent. The only experimental system disclosed was Fire’s
(Riggs Decl. ¶ 15). There was little information about what perturbations
Appeal 2010-006827
Reexamination Control 90/007,247 and 90/008,096
Patent 6,573,099 B2

13
and modifications could be made to the system, while still retaining its
operability (id.). Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to establish a
reasonable expectation of success that adding a stuffer fragment to produce a
loop would have stabilized Fire’s self-complementary RNA without
impeding its function.
The Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to combine
prior art methods and use known techniques “to improve similar devices
(methods, or products) in the same way” and to choose from “predictable
solutions” (Ans. 11). However, as indicated above, there is no evidence that
applying antisense technology to Fire’s double-stranded RNA was simply
applying a known technique to a similar product with a predictable solution.
To the contrary, Fire taught that antisense RNA involved a different
mechanism and required different structure features than those identified as
critical in Fire’s double-stranded RNA technology.
It was also argued by the Examiner that the cited references are in the
same field of endeavor and address the same problem as Fire because they
relate to inhibiting gene expression with self-complementary nucleic acid
sequences which form double-stranded hairpin structures (Ans. 14-15 & 17).
There is a fundamental difference between Fire and the cited antisense
references: Fire used double-stranded RNA to inhibit gene expression while
the antisense references used single-stranded antisense oligonucleotides.
While such references may generally be in the same field of endeavor, the
Examiner has not provided evidence that persons of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized that a technique to improve the stability of single-
Appeal 2010-006827
Reexamination Control 90/007,247 and 90/008,096
Patent 6,573,099 B2

14
stranded antisense RNA would be applicable to a double-stranded RNA,
which achieves success by a distinctly different mechanism.
The Examiner also stated that Fire’s self-complementary RNA formed
hairpin loops (Ans. 9). However, the Examiner did not provide a reasonable
basis upon which to believe that the self-complementary RNA described by
Fire would have necessarily possessed such a structure.

OBVIOUSNESS OVER FIRE PATENT OR FIRE PATENT
PUBLICATION & CONRAD AND OTHER PRIOR ART
Claims 4, 6, and 10-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious in view of the Fire patent or Fire patent application publication and
Szyf, Zamecnik, and Tang (or Szyf, Bissler, and Chou), and Conrad.

Issue
Would it have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
have utilized a DNA construct, as in claim 4, with separate promoters
operable in animal cells to drive expression of two identical copies of a gene
sequence, based on the teachings of Fire and Conrad?

Facts (“F”)
17. Conrad describes a vector with T7 and T3 promoters (Conrad,
col. 5, ll. 32-34).
18. The Examiner did not dispute Appellant’s statement that the T7
and T3 promoters are bacteriophage promoters, which “will not naturally
function in animal cells.” (App. Br. 66.)
Appeal 2010-006827
Reexamination Control 90/007,247 and 90/008,096
Patent 6,573,099 B2

15
19. “Another option is to design the inverted repeats to contain
eukaryotic or prokaryotic and/or prokaryotic receptor recognition sites,
prom[o]ter, or promoter/enhancer elements to drive the expression of the
target sequences in isolated cis-oriented fashion.” (Conrad, col. 3, ll. 60-63.)

Analysis
Claims 4 and 10 each require a double-stranded DNA construct with
“two identical copies of a structural gene sequence and each identical copy
of said structural gene sequence is separately placed under the control of a
promoter.” Each promoter is recited in the claim to “be operable” in animal
cells that have been transfected with the construct.
The Examiner did not establish prima facie obviousness of claims 4
and 10. The Examiner did not dispute Appellant’s statement that the T7 and
T3 promoters are bacteriophage promoters, which “will not naturally
function in animal cells.” (F18.) Consequently, Conrad does not meet the
elements of claims 4 and 10 that require a promoter to be operable in animal
cells.
The Examiner contends that the T7 and T3 promoters are “preferred
embodiments,” and that
Conrad additionally taught that the vectors may comprise
eukaryotic or prokaryotic receptor recognition sites, promoters
or promoter/enhancer elements to drive the expression of target
in isolated cis-oriented fashion (see column 3, lines 60-63).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in the art to design vectors with promoters that are capable of
expressing in animal cells.
(Ans. 35.)
Appeal 2010-006827
Reexamination Control 90/007,247 and 90/008,096
Patent 6,573,099 B2

16
This argument is not persuasive. It is not evident how Conrad’s
disclosure at column 3, lines 60-63 (F19) would have prompted a person of
ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the bacteriophage promoters T7 and
T3 with two eukaryotic promoters that are operable in animal cells. For
example, the cited passage refers to replacing “inverted repeats,” not to the
T7 and T3 promoters. The Examiner has not articulated a sufficient reason
for modifying the T7/T3 vector to have arrived at the claimed invention.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW & SUMMARY
The Examiner has not articulated a persuasive reason why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have made the
construct of claim 5 by modifying Fire’s single self-complementary RNA
with a stuffer fragment as taught by Szyf, Zamecnik, and Tang. The
obviousness rejection of claims 5-7 and 11-24 is reversed.
The Examiner has not articulated a persuasive reason why a person of
ordinary skill in the art, based on the teachings of Fire and Conrad, would
have found it obvious to have utilized a DNA construct, as in claim 4, with
separate promoters operable in animal cells to drive expression of two
identical copies of a gene sequence. The obviousness rejection of claims 4,
6, and 10-22 is reversed.

REVERSED

Appeal 2010-006827
Reexamination Control 90/007,247 and 90/008,096
Patent 6,573,099 B2

17

bim

FOR APPELLANT:

GARY J. GERSHIK
COOPER & DUNHAM, LLP
30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA
20TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10112

FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER:

ERICH E. VEITENHEIMER
COOLEY GODWARD, LLP
777 6TH STREET, NW
SUITE 1100
WASHINGTON, DC 20001