Appeal No. 94-3255
Application 07/673,264
recitation in claim 55 of “an auxotrophic bacterium of...
Bacillus MGA3," is vague and indefinite (and, presumably,3
fails to satisfy the requirements of the second paragraph of §
112), we find her argument: that it is not clear whether the
appellants intend to claim “a mutant of Bacillus MGA3 or
Bacillus MGA3 itself,” to be unpersuasive. Answer, p. 5.
Rather, we agree with the appellants that the plain meaning of
the word “of” as being “obtained or derived from,” indicates
that the claim is directed to auxotrophic mutants derived from
Bacillus MGA3.
As to the recitation of a “corresponding environmental
isolate of Bacillus MGA3,” (See Categories (2) and (4),
above), we agree with the examiner that the phrase is vague
and indefinite. However, we do not find that the examiner has
considered this phrase in the context of the category(ies)
wherein it appears. In our opinion, the examiner has focused
too narrowly on only a portion of the claim both with respect
to category 2 and category 4, above.
Concerning category 2, we find that, in its entirety, it
3See Category (1).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007