Appeal No. 95-3959
Application 08/051,492
Claims 1 through 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
being nonenabled, and under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
In addition, claims 1 through 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Henningfield. We reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second
paragraphs, and vacate the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph
As seen from claim 1 on appeal, the claimed invention is directed to a method
for providing nutrition to a pet which involves the step of administering an enteral
suspension of nutrients by a syringe. The examiner has determined that the claims on
appeal are nonenabled for two separate reasons. First, the examiner states at page 32
of the Examiner’s Answer:
As written, the disclosure fails to properly describe the composition of
the nutritional supplement. More details are provided concerning the
emulsion characteristics of the composition than anything else.
In addition, the examiner has determined at the second page 3 of the Examiner’s
Answer that
the disclosure is enabling only for claims limited to a method of providing
nutrition wherein the emulsion contains no less than about 10% protein,
2The Examiner’s Answer contains two page 3s. This citation is to the first page
3.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007