Appeal No. 1995-3257
Application 08/056,382
Enablement
All the appealed claims are finally rejected under
the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. ' 112 as being drawn to a
non-enabling disclosure. Examiner bears the initial
burden of providing reasons why a supporting disclosure
does not enable a claim. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220,
223, 169 USPQ 367, 369 (CCPA 1971). We conclude that
examiner has not met this burden.
1
After reading examiner's position , it is evident that
examiner focuses exclusively on whether the claims are enabled for preventing alopecia in
humans and yet does not question enablement with respect to other treatments. Of all the
claims on appeal (1-3, 6-9, 11-15 and 18-20), only claims 12-15 and 18 are directed to
methods of therapy and only one claim, claim 18, is directed to preventing alopecia. The other
claims are directed to topical compositions. We reproduce claims 12-15 and 18:
12. A method of cytostatic therapy in animals, comprising topically administering to an
animal in need of such therapy an anthracycline antibiotic and an antidotal effective amount of
an anti-anthracycline antibiotic monoclonal antibody produced from a hybridoma deposited at
ECACC under No. 90011003 on January 12, 1990 in a pharmaceutically acceptable topical
carrier.
13. The method of claim 12 wherein the monoclonal antibody is administered before,
during and after administration of the anthracycline antibiotic.
14. The method of claim 13 wherein the monoclonal antibody in the carrier is applied
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007