Appeal No. 94-2504
Application 07/963,676
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The claims should all relate to the host of
the tissue and not as claimed.
Claims 1 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as the disclosure is enabling
only for claims limited in accord with the entire
disclosure. See M.P.E.P. §§ 706.03(n) and 703.03(z).
“A cell membrane permeant calcium buffer” is
broader than the specific supporting disclosure.
It is also broader than the elected invention.
In response to these rejections (Paper No. 7, filed May
5, 1993), applicants canceled Claims 2 and 4 and amended Claim
1 to specify the “host” and to further define the “calcium
buffer” as a chelating agent having a K within a designated
D
range.
In the FINAL office action mailed May 13, 1993 (Paper
No. 8), the examiner responded to applicants’ amendment and
arguments as follows:
Claims 1 and 10-16 remain examined.
Claims 1 and 11-16 remain rejected for the reasons
of record under 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st paragraph.
The rejected phrase remains too broad and such is
broader than the elected invention.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Appellants filed NOTICE OF APPEAL August 13, 1993.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007