Appeal No. 1997-3378
Application 08/487,946
We reverse.
Claim 5 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and reads as follows:
5. A method for determining D-arabinitol, which method comprises the steps
of:
providing in combination (1) a medium suspected of containing
D-arabinitol and (2) a D-arabinitol dehyrogenase enzyme, said enzyme being capable of
catalyzing the oxidation of D-arabinitol and substantially incapable of catalyzing the
oxidation of D-mannitol, and
examining said medium for a product produced as a result of said oxidation
of said D-arabinitol.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 12, February 26, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 10, December 16, 1996)
for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Claims 5-9 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for failing
to provide an enabling disclosure. An analysis of whether the claims under appeal are
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007