Appeal No. 1996-1090
Application No, 08/027,974
with a CEA family member involves routine techniques."4
This is supported by a declaration (paper no. 18, p. 5)
which states that "confirming a given fragment exhibits
immunological cross-reactivity with a CEA family member
also does not present any undue obstacle and is within
the skill of the ordinary practitioner in the art."
Examiner does not appear to challenge these statements
and in fact concedes that antibodies can be made from the
claimed fragment,5 a necessary step to achieving a cross-
reactivity with a CEA family member. If antibodies can
be made from the claimed fragment and no undue
experimentation is required to react the antibodies with
CEA molecules, it follows therefore that the
specification fully enables one to use the claimed
fragment I in obtaining antibodies for reactivity with
CEA molecules.
Examiner takes the position6 that while one might be
4 "The examiner concedes that obtaining the fragments is
not a basis for this rejection. The Examiner also
apparently concedes that the determination of which
fragments exhibit cross-reactivity with a CEA family
member involves routine techniques." Brief, p. 12.
5 "Appellants' distortion of the enablement rejection
does not make since [sense, sic] as Examiner has
repeatedly conceded that one can make peptides and raise
antibodies to them." Examiner's Answer, p. 4.
6 "Appellant's arguments are deceptive in that [they,
sic] argue against rejections that are not of record. In
paper 14 [Advisory Action] page 3, lines 5-7 the Examiner
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007