Appeal No. 95-2710
Application 08/011,837
semen. Appellants also argue that Isojima does not disclose
application of a pan semen antibody into the vaginal cavity or
uterus or to the skin surfaces and mucus epithelial surfaces
(brief, page 13).
In order for a claimed invention to be anticipated under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), all of the elements of the claim must be
found in one reference. See Scripps Clinic & Research Found.
v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010
(Fed. Cir. 1991). The examiner has the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of anticipation by pointing
out where all of the claim limitations appear in a single
reference. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d
1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327,
231 USPQ 136, 138-39 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Each of appellants’ claims requires a step of applying
the at least one pan semen antibody, either into the vaginal
cavity or uterus of a female mammal or to the skin surfaces
and mucus epithelial surfaces. Appellants do not acknowledge
that this step was known in the art. Also, the examiner does
not point out, and we do not find, where Isojima describes
-10-10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007