Appeal No. 1996-2229
Application 08/196,748
18 kDa as determined on silver stained SDS-polyacrylamide
denaturing gel, and substantially free of other contaminants.
The claims do, in fact, set out and circumscribe a particular
area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. In
re Moore,
439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103
Claims 1 through 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Söderström (U), Yoshimoto (RR), Yoshimoto (SS),
or Söderström (TT). In entering these rejections, the examiner
does not designate any particular passage or passages relied on
in the cited references. See 37 CFR § 1.104(c)(2), which states:
In rejecting claims for want of novelty or for
obviousness, the examiner must cite the best
references at his or her command. When a
reference is complex or shows or describes
inventions other than that claimed by the
applicant, the particular part relied on must
be designated as nearly as practicable. The
pertinence of each reference, if not apparent,
must be clearly explained and each rejected
claim specified. [emphasis added]
This the examiner has not done. Nor does the appellant discuss
specific portions or passages of the cited references. For this
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007