Appeal No. 96-0926
Application No. 07/995,683
Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980). In
considering this rejection, due recognition to the evidence of
record in the nature of the declarations under 37 C.F.R. §
1.132 must be given. Appellant's observation that he
discovered or observed an effect greater than would have been
expected must also be considered in the context the
observation is set forth (page 2, lines 14 through 21 of the
specification).
We also observe that in three of the declarations under
37 C.F.R. § 1.132, the declarants (Gutentag, Tate and Otto)
state that they have been patients of Dr. Mendell for more
than one year prior to the filing date of the instant
application. The examiner should make inquiry to determine if
any of the treatments declarants received was given prior to
one year before the critical date of December 23, 1992. If
therapy within the claimed subject matter here on appeal was
given more than one year prior to December 23, 1992, a
statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) may have occurred.
We also observe that in each of claims 1, 2, 3 and 5,
appellant has used the terminology "such as" to describe the
various chemicals which cause the disorders or to describe the
disorders themselves. Such language renders the claims
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007