Ex parte MENGER et al. - Page 4




             Appeal No. 95-0802                                                                                   
             Application 07/814,078                                                                               


             O’Brien et al. (O’Brien), "Role of Microorganisms in the Metabolism of Termites," Aust. J.           
             Biol. Sci., Vol. 35, pp. 239-62 (1982)                                                               
             Odelson et al. (Odelson), "Nutrition and Growth Characteristics of Trichomitopsis                    
             termopsidis, a Cellulolytic Protozoan from Termites," Appl. and Environ. Microbiol., Vol.            
             49, no. 3, pp. 614-21 (1985)                                                                         
             Lee et al. (Lee 1987), "Association of Methanogenic Bacteria with Flagellated Protozoa               
             from a Termite Hindgut," Curr. Microbiol., Vol. 15, pp. 337-41 (1987)                                
                    A patent discussed by this merits panel is:                                                   
             Srivastava et al.                5,670,345                  Sep. 23, 1997                            

                    Claim 52 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph.  Claims 47                  
             through 56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being non-enabled.              
             Claims 47 through 56 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  As evidence of                      
             obviousness the examiner relies upon Johnson, Lee (1987), Lee (1971), Odelson ,                      
             O’Brien , Condensed Chemical Dictionary and French.  We affirm the rejection under 35                
             U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first                   
             paragraph, and reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  In addition, we raise an issue          
             for the examiner to consider upon return of the application.                                         
                                                  DISCUSSION                                                      
             Dependency                                                                                           
                    Appellants do not dispute the merits of the rejection of claim 52 under 35 U.S.C. §           
             112, fourth paragraph.  Accordingly, we affirm the rejection.                                        

                                                        4                                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007