Appeal No. 95-1881
Application 08/032,166
reasons stated in appellants’ Appeal Brief. In our view, the2
examiner has not satisfied the PTO’s initial burden to
adequately explain: (1) why persons having ordinary skill in
the art would not have recognized from the specification,
especially Figure 3, that applicants invented the claimed
method for releasing an
O-glycan by reacting a glycoconjugate with a hydrazine reagent
O O
at “about 55 C to about 75 C at 8 hours”; (2) why the
specification would not have enabled persons skilled in the
art to make and use the method claimed wherein the hydrazine
reagent is “a hydrazine-containing compound” without undue
experimentation; and (3) why the method claimed would have
been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art in
view of Montreuil’s teaching.
REVERSED
Teddy S. Gron )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
2 At oral argument, counsel for appellants noted
Parekh et al., U.S. Patent 5,539,090, patented July 23, 1996,
from Application (continued...) 08/195,761, filed March 12,
1993, as a continuation of Application 07/719,287, filed June
21, 1991, abandoned.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007