Ex parte ITO et al. - Page 2


                 Appeal No.  1998-1880                                                                                   
                 Application No.  08/423,865                                                                             

                        Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced                        
                 below:                                                                                                  
                        1. A method of examining a patient to determine whether said patient is                          
                            infected with Helicobacter pylori, which comprises steps of collecting gas                   
                            in the gastric cavity of said patient, and then measuring amounts of                         
                            ammonia and organic amines in the gas.                                                       

                        The reference relied upon by the examiner is:                                                    
                 Hamilton                           4,947,861                  Aug. 14, 1990                           
                                             GROUNDS OF REJECTION                                                        
                        Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as                            
                 lacking a correlation step in the method for determining infection.                                     
                        Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                       
                 Hamilton.                                                                                               
                        We reverse.                                                                                      
                                                     DISCUSSION                                                          
                        In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered appellants’                               
                 specification and claims, in addition to the respective positions articulated by the                    
                 appellants and the examiner.  We make reference to the examiner’s Answer2, and                          
                 the examiner’s Supplemental Answer3 for the examiner’s reasoning in support of the                      
                 rejections.  We further reference appellants’ Brief4, and appellants’ Reply Brief5 for                  

                 the appellants’ arguments in favor of patentability.                                                    

                                                                                                                         
                 2 Paper No. 13, mailed May 20, 1997.                                                                    
                 3 Paper No. 16, mailed September 15, 1997.                                                              
                 4 Paper No. 12, received March 27, 1997.                                                                
                 5 Paper No. 14, received July 22, 1997.                                                                 

                                                           2                                                             



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007