Appeal No. 95-3746
Application 08/063,431
mentioned in their specification. The examiner has not
carried her initial burden of providing evidence or sound
technical reasoning which indicates that appellants’
specification would not have enabled one of ordinary skill in
the art to carry out the claimed methods for treating mammals
to selectively block the uptake of serotonin or dopamine.
Consequently, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on
the ground that the claimed invention lacks patentable
utility, and under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, on the
ground that the specification fails to provide an enabling
disclosure, are reversed.
REVERSED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
TERRY J. OWENS )
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007