Appeal No. 95-4791
Application 08/034,849
infections via parenteral administration (Spec., pp. 1-2,
bridging para.).
Having weighed the evidence favoring unpatentability
against all the evidence to the contrary, we find that the
greater weight of the evidence directs us to reverse the
examiner’s rejection. We particularly note that, prior to the
Examiner’s Answer, the examiner steadfastly held that the
evidence in appellant’s specification would not have enabled
one skilled in the art reasonably to expect to successfully
use the method appellant presently claims. In that light, we
fail to see how general prior art suggestions to parenterally
treat parasite, fungi, bacteria, virus and/or mycoplasma
infections with chlorite solutions, which are supported by far
less evidence than is presented in appellant’s specification,
reasonably would have allowed persons having ordinary skill in
the art to expect to successfully treat HIV virus infection by
parenteral treatment
of a subject infected with HIV virus with known chlorite
disinfectants.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007