Appeal No. 1995-3047
Application No. 07/805,729
publication appearing in Biochemical Pharmacology, vol. 36, pages 2713 through 2718
(1987). It is unclear just what the examiner means by the term "equivalent". Suffice it to
say, however, that neither U.S Patent No. 4,861,759 or U.S. Patent No. 4,978,655 is set
forth in the statement of rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and, accordingly, we have not
considered either of those patents in our deliberations.
The issues presented for review are: (1) whether the examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as based on
a non-enabling disclosure; (2) whether the examiner erred in rejecting claims 22 through
24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs, "as the claimed invention is not
described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in
the art to make and use the same and/or for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which appellant regards as the invention." (answer, page 6); (3)
whether the examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 through 7 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Lin, Verheyden, Hamamoto, Baba (I),
Baba (II), Balzarini, DeClercq, and EP 273,277; (4) whether the examiner erred in rejecting
claims 8 through 14 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Balzarini, Verheyden, DeClercq, and International Publication No. WO
87/01284; and (5) whether the examiner erred in rejecting claims 15 through 21 and 24
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007