Appeal No. 94-3222
Application 07/815,630
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as supported by a
specification which purportedly would not have enabled persons
skilled in the art to use the full scope of products and
methods claimed for the utility indicated.
According to appellants, Claims 2 and 6-9 stand or fall
together (Brief on Appeal, p. 4). Claims 2 and 6 represent
the subject matter claimed and read:
2. A food product comprising a composition wherein
said composition comprises a non-antibody fraction of
milk
and wherein said non-antibody fraction of milk
ameliorates,
in a subject with an allergy to an allergen, the symptoms
of said allergy of said subject to said allergen when
said
fraction is ingested by said subject and wherein said
fraction is produced by the process comprising:
(a) administering said allergy to a milk-
producing animal;
(b) collecting the milk from said animal of
part (a);
(c) filtering the milk of part (b) through
a filter which excludes molecules of greater than
100,000 daltons; and
(d) collecting the effluent from the filtration
of part (c) wherein said effluent contains said fraction.
6. A method for desensitizing a subject to an
allergen wherein said method comprises orally
administering to said subject a food product, in an
amount and for a time
sufficient to produce an amelioration in said subject of
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007