Appeal No. 1996-2123
Application No. 08/069,458
Claims 49-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative,
under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as obvious over Ring or Valla or Kusakabe or Ramamurti.
Our consideration of the record leads us to conclude that this case is not in condition for a decision
on appeal. Accordingly, we remand the application to the examiner to consider the following issues and to
take appropriate action.
On page 4 of the Examiner=s Answer, the examiner states A[t]he claims are drawn to culturing
microorganisms of the genus Acetobacter and mutants thereof which are capable of producing reticulated
cellulose under conditions of continuous agitation.@ This statement mischaracterizes the claims, which are
drawn to A[a] biologically pure strain of Acetobacter@ claims 49-54, and A[a] mutant strain of
Acetobacter,@ claim 55. Contrary to the examiner=s characterization, none of appellants= claims are
Adrawn to culturing microorganisms.@
At page 5 of the Examiner=s Answer, the examiner states ARing, teach the production of pellicle
cellulose . . .. The cellulose product is produced by culturing Acetobacter xylinum . . .. Thus, Ring
[discloses] the growth of Acetobacter under conditions of agitation in order to produce cellulose fibrils
intertwined and forming a pellicle, . . . which inherently comprises pellets or individual cellulose fibrils.@
At page 5 of the Examiner=s Answer, the examiner states AValla, teach cellulose-negative mutants
of Acetobacter xylinum, (mutants which do not produce cellulose) and the use of non-mutated
microorganism for the production of cellulose products.@ At page 6 of the Examiner=s Answer, the
examiner states AValla clearly relates to the instant claims in that the use of stable strains are sought for
the formation of a cellulose product and a method of making cellulose using Acetobacter is clearly
disclosed. (see abstract).@
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007