Appeal No. 95-4914
Application No. 08/036,116
Basically, we agree with appellants that the examiner has
failed to meet his burden of establishing that undue
experimentation would be required on the part of one skilled
in this art to prepare compositions as claimed which are
useful for the asserted utility (appealed claim 30).
THE 35 U.S.C. § 112, SECOND PARAGRAPH REJECTIONS
Appealed claims 3 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.7
§ 112, second paragraph, as indefinite for several reasons.
See the answer at page 4 and 5. We also reverse these
rejections essentially for the reasons in the brief at pages
11 and 12.
SUMMARY
The examiner’s decision refusing to allow claims 1-21,
23-27, 29, and 30 is affirmed. The examiner’s decision
refusing to allow claims 22, 28, 31, and 35 is reversed. A
new rejection has been imposed against claim 28.
In addition to affirming the examiner's rejection of
one or more claims, this decision contains a new ground of
7The examiner apparently intended to reject claim 22
instead of claim 33, since claim 22 refers to a "lipophilic
peptide". See footnote 2. We note that appellants’ arguments
are directed in relevant part to claim 22.
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007