Appeal No. 95-3337
Application No. 07/759,100
I have reviewed the declaration of Dr. Lars Hanson, but
absent therein is any discussion of the obviousness of
including the recombinant lysosyme disclosed by EPO '634 in an
infant formulation.
As a final point, I am aware that only claims 40 and 45
define the use of recombinant lysosyme. However,
notwithstanding appellant's submission at page 3 of the
principal brief that the appealed claims are considered to be
separately patentable, appellant's brief fails to advance any
argument that is reasonably specific to any particular claim
on appeal. Accordingly, it is my view that all of the
appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 40, and, 4
therefore, I would sustain the examiner's rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103 which relies upon the acknowledged prior art
found in appellant's specification.
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
4In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528
(Fed. Cir. 1987); Ex parte Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016, 1018-19
(Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991). See also 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)
and (c)(8).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007