Appeal No. 95-2070
Application No. 08/073,816
DISCUSSION
1. Utility/Enablement
Having considered the respective positions of appellant and the examiner, we find
ourselves in agreement with that of appellant. Accordingly, we reverse these rejections for
the reasons set forth in Sections II-IV of the appeal brief (Paper No. 10, July 25, 1994).
2. Obviousness
A conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 must be based upon the
claimed subject matter as a whole. Accordingly, before turning to the merits of the
examiner’s rejection, we must determine what subject matter is claimed in claim 1 on
appeal.
We view claim 1 on appeal as having two aspects. First, claim 1 is directed to “[a]
hybridoma cell line having the identifying characteristics of hybridoma cell line B6H12,
ATCC HB 9771". Second, claim 1 is directed to “any cell line derived [from hybridoma cell
line B6H12, ATCC HB 9771] that produces antibodies . . .”
In considering the first aspect of claim 1, the question arises as to what is meant by
the phrase “identifying characteristics” since a hybridoma such as B6H12 has many
identifying characteristics. Since claim 1 on appeal does not delineate any “identifying
characteristics,” we view this first aspect of claim 1 on appeal to be strictly limited to
“hybridoma cell line B6H12, ATCC HB 9771,” no more, no less. In other words, the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007