Appeal No. 1996-0826
Application No. 08/271,583
ISSUES5
I. Claims 1-3, 5-15, 17, 19-28 and 59-60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lehrer, Klebanoff (31) or Belding taken with Kanofsky and Clark and further in
view of Hasegawa.
II. Claims 1 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Klebanoff (01) taken with Hasegawa.
We reverse both rejections and institute a new ground of rejection.
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the appellant’s
specification and claims and to the respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner.
We make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 46, mailed
July 21, 1995) for the examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejection and to appellant’s substitute brief
(Paper No. 45, filed June 16, 1995) for the appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a method of selectively inhibiting the growth of
pathogenic microbes while not eliminating normal flora in an animal. The method comprises a)
administering to the animal an amount of a haloperoxidase which is therapeutically effective, in the
5According to the advisory action mailed March 1, 1995 (Paper No. 40), the amendment filed
February 14, 1995 (Paper No. 39) obviated the final rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-15, 17, 19-28, 59 and 60 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007