Appeal No. 95-2603
Application 07/915,871
§ 1.196(b), we enter the following new grounds of rejection:
(1) claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Ciampolini;
(2) claims 8 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Fabbrizzi;
(3) claims 7 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Barefield; and
(4) claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, in view of Ciampolini, as being based upon a
specification which fails to enable a person skilled in the
art to make the invention as broadly as claimed, i.e., the
enabling disclosure in appellants’ specification is not
commensurate in scope with the breadth of claim 23.
OPINION
A. The § 103 Rejection over Lehn
Claim 23 recites a pharmaceutical composition comprising
an active ingredient selected from a group of eleven
compounds and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.4
4Eleven "compounds" are recited in claim 23. The first, "bicyclam" is a
recitation of a genus of compounds. The other ten "compounds" are specific compounds.
The genus "bicyclam" encompasses the 2,2'-bicyclam and 6,6'-bicyclam isomers of claims 7
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007