Appeal No. 2001-2316 Page 13
Application No. 08/187,879
appellants’ specification provides an enabling description for the full scope of
appellants’ claimed invention. As discussed, supra, the Robinson declaration
fails to demonstrate a complete protective response. We are also not persuaded
by appellants’ rhetorical arguments (Brief, pages 7-8), regarding the virulence
and quantity of challenge virus used. These arguments are not supported by
evidence on this record. Accordingly, it is our opinion that appellants failed to
meet their burden of proof.
On reflection, it is our opinion that the majority of the Wands factors weigh
in favor of nonenablement. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 44 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being based on an insufficient disclosure to
support or enable the full scope of the claimed invention. As set forth, supra,
claims 45, 46, 50, 51 and 81-89 fall together with claim 44.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007