Ex parte SCHULTZ et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 94-1643                                                          
          Application 07/805,502                                                      


               1.  A method for performing a sterospecific reduction                  
          reaction of an "-ketoamide to an "-hydroxyamide, said method                
          comprising:                                                                 
               (a)    contacting in a reaction mixture the following                  
          species:                                                                    
               (i) said "-ketoamide,                                                  
               (ii) a reducing agent, and                                             
               (iii) monoclonal antibody raised against a hapten                      
          comprising an analog of said "-ketoamide in which the "-                    
          carbonyl group of said "-ketoamide is replaced by a                         
          phosphonate moiety, said monoclonal antibody having been                    
          screened on the basis of its catalytic activity toward                      
          said reduction reaction and                                                 
               (b) recovering said "-hydroxyamide from said reaction                  
          mixture.                                                                    
               The examiner does not rely on any prior art in rejecting all           
          the claims under § 112, first paragraph, as being based on a                
          nonenabling disclosure.  Answer, p. 4.  In addition, the examiner           
          urges that the hybridoma cell line used to produce monoclonal               
          antibody A5 must be deposited in order for the specification to             
          fully comply with the requirements of the first paragraph of §              
          112.                                                                        
               Having carefully considered the entire record which includes           
          the appellants’ main Brief (Paper No. 16) and Reply Brief (Paper            
          No. 18) and the examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 17), we find                   
          ourselves in full agreement with the appellants’ position.                  
          Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejection.                           

                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007