Appeal No. 95-4473
Application 08/003,894
have been expressly withdrawn. See the Examiner's Answer, pages 1 and 2.
Furthermore, we note the rejection of claims 35 through 37 under 35 USC § 102(b) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 USC § 103 as unpatentable over Hill or
Nagoya set forth in the final rejection, paper no. 9, page 8. That rejection was not repeated
or referred to in the Examiner's Answer. The only plausible interpretation which these facts
permit is that the rejection of claims 35 through 37 on prior art grounds has been dropped.
See Paperless Accounting v. Bay Area Rapid Transit System 804 F.2d 659, 663, 231
USPQ 649, 651-52 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The issue remaining for review is whether the examiner erred in rejecting claims 1
thorough 34 under 35 USC § 102(b) as anticipated by, or, in the alternative, under 35 USC
§ 103 as unpatentable over Hill or the combined disclosures of Hilll and Nagoya.
On consideration of the record, we reverse the rejection of claims 9 through 16, 26,
30 through 32, and 34. However, we affirm the rejection of claims 1 through 8, 17 through
25, 27 through 29, and 33.
DISCUSSION
On reflection, we believe that a rational disposition of this appeal requires
consideration of the following groups of claims: (I) Claims 9 through 16, 26, 30 through
32, and 34, drawn to methods reciting specific monoclonal antibodies, i.e., only those
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007