Ex parte DANIELS et al. - Page 2




              Appeal No. 94-2208                                                                                       
              Application 07/756,346                                                                                   


                                           REMAND TO THE EXAMINER                                                      
                     We remand this application to the examiner to consider the following issues and                   
              take appropriate action.                                                                                 
                     The following claims are representative of the subject matter on appeal:                          
                     9.  A subunit vaccine against Chlamydia infection comprising:  (1)  an essentially                
              pure polypeptide fraction of Chlamydia psittaci strain DD-34, wherein said fraction                      
              comprises a polypeptide having a molecular weight of about 96 kilodaltons and optionally                 
              other polypeptides having molecular weights ranging from about 40 to 140 kilodaltons; and                
              (2) a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.                                                               

                     11.  The vaccine of Claim 9 consisting essentially of said 96 kilodalton polypeptide.             

                     12.  A subunit vaccine against Chlamydia infection comprising polypeptides of                     
              Chlamydia psittaci strain DD-34, wherein said polypeptides are reactive with antibody                    
              secreted by hybridoma ATTC No. HB10861.                                                                  

                     13.  A method of immunizing a subject against Chlamydia comprising administering                  
              an effective amount of the vaccine of Claim 9.                                                           


                                                          A                                                            
                     Claims 9 through 16 are rejected at pages 3-6 of the Examiner’s Answer (Paper                     
              No. 8, mailed April 30, 1993) under 35 U.S.C.  112, first paragraph, as “lacking sufficient             
              description or enablement.”  The written description requirement of this section of the                  
              statute is separate and apart from the enablement requirement of this section of the                     


                                                          2                                                            





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007