Appeal No. 2001-1651 Page 15
Application No. 09/238,972
application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient
detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the
inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.
Accordingly, we do not agree with appellant’s statement (Brief, page 10), “the
specification of … [‘123] inherently provides the basis for support for antisense
oligonucleotides directed against CAT2 mRNA since the specification discloses
the gene sequence of CAT2.”
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by MacLeod. As set for above, claims 3
and 17 fall together with claim 16.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
)
Donald E. Adams )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Demetra J. Mills )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Eric Grimes )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007