Appeal No. 95-2710
Application 08/011,837
such an application step. The examiner’s argument based on Ex
Parte Novitski, 26 USPQ2d 1389 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993)
that “[t]he agglutination of pathogenic cells would be
inherent with the administration of the claimed antibody”
(answer, page 4) is not well founded because the examiner does
not point out where the relied-upon prior art discloses “the
administration of the claimed antibody”. In Novitski, 26
USPQ2d at 1390, the board considered the claimed invention to
be anticipated. In the present case, the examiner does not
indicate where Isojima describes appellants’ claimed methods
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
For the above reasons, we find that the examiner has not
carried his burden of establishing a prima facie case of
anticipation of the method recited in any of appellants’
claims. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
DECISION
The rejections of claims 52, 54, 55 and 58-61 under 35
U.S.C. § 101 as lacking patentable utility, of claims 52, 54,
-11-11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007