Appeal No. 94-1707
Application 07/345,622
ENABLEMENT REJECTION
We reverse this rejection for the well stated reasons which appear on pages 5-6 of
the Appeal Brief.
PRIOR ART REJECTION
We vacate this rejection because the statement of the rejection which appears on
pages 6-12 of the Examiner’s Answer is not susceptible to a meaningful review. The
examiner has rejected all of the claims as a group on the basis of a combination of ten
references. The examiner has not applied the disclosure of any individual reference to the
requirements of any individual claim. Rather, the examiner, in stating the rejection,
described the claimed subject matter in a single sentence, tersely described each of the
ten references relied upon and reached the following conclusion:
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine
the teachings of Lazar et al. in view of Choo et al., Lion Corp.,
Gancet et al., and Borgstrom and further in view of [Chemical
Abstracts], Nippon Oils and Fats, Mendy et al., Rubin et al.,
and Markley to produce 2-monoglycerides enriched in T-3
fatty acids in reasonably high yields by lipase catalyzed
alcoholysis (transesterification) of appropriate triglycerides
and purify them by low temperature fractional crystallization.
The motivation to produce the 2-monoglycerides is based on
their benefit to health and absorption by humans.
The remainder of the statement of the rejection lacks any substance.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007