Appeal No. 1996-2123
Application No. 08/069,458
DISCUSSION
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. 22, mailed October 4, 1994), and the
Supplemental Examiner=s Answer (Paper No. 26, mailed March 6, 1995) for the examiner=s reasoning in
support of the rejection. We further reference appellants= Brief1 (Paper No. 21, filed May 2, 1994), and
appellants= Reply Brief (Paper No. 23, filed December 1, 1994) for the appellants= arguments in favor of
patentability.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. ' 112, first paragraph:
At page 3 of the Examiner Answer, the examiner states Ano example or description is provided as
to any mutagenic process which would yield such a strain [capable of producing >substantially= pure
cellulose under >substantially= continuous agitation] . . .. Further the specification provides no guidance as
to how to identify, isolate or obtain a bacteria which fits the description.@ At page 4 of their Reply Brief,
appellants point to Examples 3 and 4 stating the specification Adescribes methods of mutagenizing and
screening Acetobacter . . . for strains capable of producing reticulated cellulose in the claimed methods.@
The Supplemental Examiner=s Answer does not address this issue.
1 We note that page 3 of Appendix B, attached to appellants= Brief makes reference to the 1985 ATCC Catalog.
Appellants= state A[c]opies of pertinent sections of the 1985 catalog are attached hereto as Exhibit B.@ Exhibit B was
not present, as an attachment to Appendix B or among any of the Appendices attached to the Brief.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007