Ex parte HEGDE - Page 2




          Appeal No 94-1046                                                           
          Application 07/747,456                                                      
               This is an appeal from an examiner’s rejections of                     
          Claims 1-9, all claims pending in this application.                         
          1.   The claimed subject matter                                             
               Claim 1 is representative of the claimed macrolactam                   
          monosaccharide antimicrobial compound and is reproduced in the              
          attached Appendix.  All claims stand or fall together (Brief on             
          Appeal, p. 4).                                                              
               The claims are directed to a macrolactam monosaccharide                
          antimicrobial compound in substantially pure form, its                      
          pharmaceutically acceptable salts, pharmaceutical compositions              
          comprising the pure compound or its salts, and methods for their            
          administration to hosts having a susceptible microbial infection.           
          “The compound is isolated from an antimicrobial complex 517 which           
          is produced in fermentation under controlled conditions using a             
          biologically pure culture of the microorganism, Actinomadura                
          vulgaris subsp. vulgaris SCC 1776, ATCC 53748" (Specification               
          (Spec.), p. 1, introductory paragraph).  The microorganism was              
          isolated from soil collected in Borneo (Spec., p. 3, last                   
          paragraph).                                                                 
          2.   The rejections                                                         
               A.   Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first            
          paragraph, purportedly because the specification, as originally             
          filed, did not describe the compound of formula 1 of Claim 1.               

                                        - 2 -                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007