Appeal No. 1995-3257
Application 08/056,382
claim that is directed to any use. Since examiner has not questioned that the claimed
monoclonal antibody does in fact work as an antidote to anthracycline antibiotics, it is unclear
why examiner is questioning the same antidotal effect in the particular context of preventing
alopecia.
Since examiner has not met the initial burden of providing reasons why a supporting
disclosure does not enable the claims, we reverse the rejection.
Anticipation
Claims 6-9, 11, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b) as being
anticipated by Balsari I or II.
AFor a prior art reference to anticipate in terms of
35 U.S.C. ' 102, every element of the claimed invention
must be identically shown in the single reference,@ In re
Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir.
1990). Since the prior art does not teach every element
of the claimed invention, we reverse the rejection.
Setting aside whether the references teach the
particular monoclonal antibody recited in the claims,
they do not teach a composition comprising the mAb at
an "antidotal effective amount". Examiner has not
directed us to where in the references this is disclosed
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007