Appeal No. 94-1911
Application 07/662,735
All claims stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as based on a specification which would not have
enabled persons skilled in the art to make and use the full
scope of the claimed invention, and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable in view of the combined teachings of Drahos et al.
(Drahos), “Tracking Recombinant Organisms in the Environment:
B-Galactosidase as a Selectable Non-Antibiotic Marker for
Fluorescent Pseudomonads,” BIO/TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 4, pp. 439-444
(May 1986); Winter et al. (Winter), “Efficient Degradation
of Trichloroethylene by a Recombinant Escherichia coli,”
BIO/TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 7, pp. 282-285 (Mar. 1989); Sick et al.
(Sick), U.S. 4,996,155, patented February 26, 1991; and Blair,
U.S. 4,483,923, patented November 20, 1984. A new ground of
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 which was entered at pp. 4-5 of
the Examiner’s Answer (Paper # 16) has been withdrawn by the
examiner (Supplemental Examiner’s Answer, p. 1 (Paper # 21)).
Claims 5, 6 and 11 are said to stand or fall together with
Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (Brief on Appeal
(Br.), p. 4, first full para.). However, appellants state that
the claims do not stand or fall together under 35 U.S.C. § 103
(Br. 4). The examiner agrees (Examiner’s Answer (Ans.), p. 2).
Claims 11 and 6 represent the methods claimed and read:
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007