Appeal No. 1996-2436
Application 07/887,451
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal, reads as follows:
1. A method of inhibiting two-stage skin carcinogenesis - promoting effects of
carcinogens in an animal, the method comprising administration of prophylactically
effective amounts of a dietary supplement to an animal, wherein the supplement includes:
BHA or BHT; vitamin E; and $-carotene.
The prior art reference relied on by the examiner is:
Amer 4,599,234 July 8, 1986
In the final rejection mailed December 28, 1993 (Paper No. 9), the examiner
rejected claims 1 and 20 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph; 35 U.S.C. §
101; and 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Amer “and the prior art admitted by
applicants in the specification.” The examiner also rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. However, in the Examiner's Answer mailed March
17, 1995 (Paper No. 18), page 2, section (4), the examiner withdrew the previously
entered rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph; 35 U.S.C. § 101; and 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. Accordingly, the sole issue remaining for review is whether the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 20 through 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Amer “and the prior art admitted by applicants in the
specification.”
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007