Appeal No. 1996-1618
Application No. 07/876,804
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bastiaans, Wilchek and Katz as applied to
claims 17, 18, 22-25, 27 and 28 above, and further in view of Hansen and Richards.
We REVERSE.
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims and to the respective positions articulated by the
appellants and the examiner. We make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper No.
25, mailed February 7, 1995), to the supplemental examiner’s answer (“SEA,” Paper No.
28, mailed July 10, 1995) and to the second supplemental examiner’s answer (“SSEA,”
Paper No. 30, mailed August 29, 1995) for the examiner’s reasoning in support of the
rejections and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 21, filed June 6, 1994), to the appellants’
reply brief (“RB,” Paper No. 27, filed April 17, 1995) and to the appellants’ reply to
supplemental examiner’s answer (“SRB,” Paper No. 29, filed July 31, 1995) for the
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
A. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶¶ 1 and 2
The examiner rejected claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶¶ 1 and 2, because the
metes and bounds of “glycosylated receptor protein with said selected sugars attached”
was indefinite (answer, page 3) and because the specification failed to enable the skilled
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007