Ex parte HENDLEY et al. - Page 3




             Appeal No. 95-3640                                                                                   
             Application 08/147,742                                                                               


             83:1409r (1975).                                                                                     
             “212. Alcohol, Anhydrous. Ethanol, ethyl alcohol”, Merck Index                                       
             207 (Merck & Co., 10th ed. 1983).                                                                    
             John Ejnar Anderson, “Treatment of infections with acids and                                         
             salts”, Chemical Abstracts 114:199662t (1991).                                                       
             Ulrich Kirschner and Thomas Pohl (Kirschner), “Citric acid-                                          
             based aqueous disinfectant for inactivation of hepatitis B                                           
             virus, bacterial spores and Legionella pneumonia”, Chemical                                          
             Abstracts 117:220180h (1992).                                                                        
                                               THE REJECTIONS                                                     
                    Claims 1-6 stand rejected as follows: under 35 U.S.C.                                         
             § 101 on the ground that the claimed invention lacks                                                 
             patentable utility; under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, on                                       
             the ground that the specification fails to provide an enabling                                       
             disclosure; under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                                         
             Merck Index, Mazur, Andersen and Kirschner.                                                          
                                                    OPINION                                                       
                    We have carefully considered all of the arguments                                             
             advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with                                               
             appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not well                                           
             founded.  Accordingly, we do not sustain these rejections.                                           
                                    Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101                                               
                    Before utility is determined, the claims must be                                              

                                                       -3-3                                                       





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007