Appeal No. 95-2710
Application 08/011,837
whenever a rejection on this basis is made, to
explain why it doubts the truth or accuracy of any
statement in a supporting disclosure and to back up
assertions of its own with acceptable evidence or
reasoning which is inconsistent with the contested
statement. Otherwise, there would be no need for
the applicant to go to the trouble and expense of
supporting his presumptively accurate disclosure.
The examiner has not carried his initial burden of setting
forth evidence or sound technical reasoning which indicates
that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been
enabled by appellants’ specification to provide prophylaxis
and passive immunization of skin surfaces and mucus epithelial
surfaces using the disclosed antibodies and other antibodies
selected according to the guidelines in appellants’
specification.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
The examiner argues that in appellants’ specification at
page 11, lines 14-23, appellants acknowledge that antibodies
which immobilize sperm, usually by agglutination, were known
in the art (answer, pages 4 and 9). Appellants argue that
they have admitted that certain antibodies were known in the
-8-8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007