Appeal No. 94-4393
Application 07/692,921
providing a polypeptide containing a heparin-binding region of TGF-$;
immobilizing the polypeptide on an insoluble substrate;
contacting the immobilized polypeptide with heparin for a sufficient time to allow
binding;
collecting the unbound fraction;
collecting the bound fraction; and
concentrating the bound and unbound fractions.
Inconsistent Rejections
Claims 1 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite. The examiner considers the word “subspecies” to be vague and indefinite.
Claims 1 and 9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite. The examiner considers these claims to be indefinite for failure to “set forth
specific steps in the process of using the instant invention” (Examiner’s Answer, page 3).
In regard to the rejection of claims 1 and 7, we note that claims such as claim 4
which depend from claim 1 do not further define or in any other way provide any further
meaning to the word “subspecies” as this word is used in claim 1. Thus, it is not clear why
claim 4 as well as the other claims dependent from claim 1 are not included in the rejection
of claim 1 for this reason. The second rejection suffers from the same defect. Again, the
claims which depend from independent claims 1 and 9 do not correct the alleged defect in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007