Appeal No. 1996-0826
Application No. 08/271,583
and the lack of toxicity to non-target cells disclosed by Nedwin reads on the claimed selective killing of
pathogenic microbes (i.e., target cells) while not eliminating the normal flora (i.e., non-target cells).
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner (I) to reject claims 1-3, 5-15, 17, 19-28 and 59-
60 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 is reversed and (II) to reject claims 1 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Klebanoff (01) taken with Hasegawa reversed.
However, claims 1, 5, 14, 15, 19 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by
Nedwin.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b) (amended
effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53, 131, 53, 197 (Oct. 10, 1997), 1203 off.
Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)). 37 CFR § 1.196(b) provides that, “A new
ground of rejection shall not be considered final for purposes of judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM
THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the two following options with respect to
new ground of rejection to avoid termination of proceedings (§ 1.197(c)) as to the rejected claims:
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007