Re-exam granted on US 7,993,889 to Butamax
On 27 August 2011, IPBiz had posted on the inter partes re-examination sought by Gevo as to the '188 patent of Butamax
[See
Gevo's inter partes re-exam request as to US 7,851,188 ]. In a communication mailed on 27 October 2011, the USPTO denied the petition for re-exam. The USPTO found NO substantial new questions of patentability for the claims challenged by Gevo. The sixteen page document was signed by Johnny F. Railley II, Deborah D. Jones, and Evelyn M. Huang.
HOWEVER, as to re-examination 95/001,735 concerning US 7,993,889 to Butamax, SNQs were found in a determination mailed on November 25, 2011. There is an Office Action with the determination. The first rejection is of some interest. Claim 1 (and others) are rejected under 102(b) over the 2003 Larroy publication ("Larroy I") because the host yeast cell described therein produces isobutanol and thus inherently possesses all the genes disclosed in claim 1. [OA, page 6]. Boulton and Dickinson are used to supplement the inherency argument.
[See
Gevo's inter partes re-exam request as to US 7,851,188 ]. In a communication mailed on 27 October 2011, the USPTO denied the petition for re-exam. The USPTO found NO substantial new questions of patentability for the claims challenged by Gevo. The sixteen page document was signed by Johnny F. Railley II, Deborah D. Jones, and Evelyn M. Huang.
HOWEVER, as to re-examination 95/001,735 concerning US 7,993,889 to Butamax, SNQs were found in a determination mailed on November 25, 2011. There is an Office Action with the determination. The first rejection is of some interest. Claim 1 (and others) are rejected under 102(b) over the 2003 Larroy publication ("Larroy I") because the host yeast cell described therein produces isobutanol and thus inherently possesses all the genes disclosed in claim 1. [OA, page 6]. Boulton and Dickinson are used to supplement the inherency argument.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 10:12 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home