Appeal No. 94-0432
Application 07/839,728
The examiner clearly erred in stating that “claims 1, 4,
7, 9-11 and 14-16 stand or fall together because appellant’s
[sic] brief does not include a statement that this grouping of
claims does not stand or fall together” (Examiner’s Answer, p.
2). To the contrary, see the express statement that “the
claims do not stand or fall together” at page 3 of Appellants’
Brief.
For purposes of this appeal, we need only consider the
examiner’s rejection as it applies to Claim 1. Claim 1 reads:
1. A method for controlling or treating RNA
viral infections and not DNA viral infections in plants
or animals, said method comprising: administering to
said plants or animals an RNA-terminating amount of
3'-deoxyribocytosine, 3'-deoxyribouracil, 3'-deoxyribo-
guanine or combinations thereof.
We have considered all the evidence and arguments in
favor of patentability and all the evidence of record to the
contrary. We have attempted to decipher the examiner’s
explanations, arguments and support in this case to no avail.
articles themselves are not of record, and we have not
retrieved them.
We have considered the merits of the examiner’s rejection as
based
on the four cited abstracts. Lest there be any doubt, we
abhor examiners’ rejections of appellants’ claims based on
abstracts
of publications when the publications themselves are
retrievable.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007