Appeal No. 99-0624
Application 07/749,482
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 112-118, 120-122 and 128-131 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Lilly, and under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Lilly.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
In order for a claimed invention to be anticipated under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), all of the elements of the claim must be
found in one reference. See Scripps Clinic & Research Found.
v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010
(Fed. Cir. 1991).
The examiner argues that clavulanic acid inherently was
produced and isolated by Lilly (answer, pages 3-24). This
argument is deficient in that it does not address the
limitation in each of the independent claims which requires
that either clavulanic acid (claim 112) or a pharmaceutically
acceptable salt thereof (claims 113 and 120) be in combination
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007