Appeal No. 1996-2568
Application No. 08/071,304
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yates in
view of DeLoach.
We reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant’s specification and claims, and to the respective positions articulated by
the appellant and the examiner. We make reference to the examiner’s Answer (Paper
No. 13, mailed March 9, 1995), and the examiner’s Supplemental Answer (Paper No.
17, mailed February 24, 1999) for the examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejection.
We further reference appellant’s Brief (Paper No. 12, received December 5, 1994),
and appellant’s Reply Brief (Paper No. 14, received April 20, 1995) for the appellant’s
arguments in favor of patentability.
THE REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103:
At page 3 of the Answer, with reference to appellant’s composition claims, the
examiner states that “Yates presents in vitro data showing the immunosuppressant
properties of G . Table V demonstrates that G has an immunosuppressant effectM4 M4
when added to mixed leukocyte cultures. Yates thereby also teaches aqueous cultures
which contain G .” At page 6 of the Answer, in reference to appellant’s method
M4
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007