Appeal No. 95-3268
Application 07/521,695
Background
The applicants' invention, as presently claimed, is described at page 2 of the
specification as being directed to a method of enhancing animal growth by treating
vertebrates with a combination of one or more antibodies to porcine somatotropin with
porcine somatotropin. Additionally, at page 3 of the specification, applicants describe the
other aspect of their invention as relating to potentiation of the activity of a somatotropin
over prolonged periods of time by administering, to a vertebrate, a somatotropin in
combination with one or more antibodies to said somatotropin, such that the weight of the
vertebrate continues to exceed that of a vertebrate treated with the same amount of the
somatotropin alone over a given period of time.
Discussion:
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Claims 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Aston(I) as
evidenced by Guyton.
Guyton is relied upon, by the examiner, only to establish that the term
"somatotropin" is synonymous with the phrase "growth hormone" (Answer, page 6), a fact
conceded by appellants (principal brief, page 8). We therefore view these terms as
interchangeable in our discussion of the issues in this appeal. Thus, the sole issue before
us under this ground of rejection, is whether Aston (I) anticipates the subject matter of
claims 23-25.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007