Appeal No. 94-3255
Application 07/673,264
(ii) are “known and readily available” to the public. Thus,
in the event of further prosecution of the claimed subject
matter, the appellants should consider whether they have fully
complied with all the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
III.
According to the appellants, “at the time of the
invention, ribulose monophosphate pathway utilizing Bacillus
methylotrophic strains were ubiquitous and widespread in
nature.” Brief, p. 7. The appellants rely on the teachings
of Dijkhuizen (1988), to support their position. Id. In
turning to the Dijkhuizen publication, we find that it, in
turn, refers to earlier reports of methylotrophic Bacillus,
isolated from nature. Dijkhuizen,
p. 209, col. 2.
In the event of future prosecution of the claimed subject
matter, the examiner should determine whether all the relevant
prior art has been searched and considered. In so doing, the
examiner should consider whether the claimed environmental
26
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007