Appeal No. 1997-0473
Application No. 07/870,985
purpose dictionary in an effort to ascertain the meaning of the terms used in the present
application. Further, as appellants point out at page 6 of the Brief:
if the term were accorded the meaning advocated by the Examiner, the
claim would be non-sensical to one of skill in the art (entry of a pathogen into
a host cannot be prevented by antibodies within the host directed against the
pathogen). On the other hand, if the term "preventing infection" is accorded
the meaning advocated by the Appellants, the claim makes perfect sense to
one of skill in the art.
In this regard we would emphasis that the disclosure submitted as part of the specification
in an application for patent is directed to, and is to be understood by, one skilled in the art
to which it relates. See Genentech Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1365, 42
USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(“[T]o be enabling, the specification of a patent must
teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention
without ‘undue experimentation.’”) (Emphasis added).
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 15 - 18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
the combination of Cohen and Bradley.
In this rejection, the examiner relies on Cohen as describing "a general teaching of
the benefits and concerns of using an antibody vaccine." (Answer, page 9). The examiner
acknowledges that Cohen "does not teach the development of an antibody vaccine to
hepatitis which is caused by HEV." (Id.). However, the examiner relies on Bradley as
teaching (id.):
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007