WOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWO
WWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWW
OWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOW
WOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWO
WWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOW
mammalian cells transformed by one or two expression vectors
encoding both subunits, and capable of producing biologically
active heterodimeric LH, FSH, CG or TSH; claims 20 through 22
and 89 are drawn to expression vectors; and claims 24, 90 and
92 are drawn to methods of producing heterodimeric proteins.
Enablement
It is well settled that the examiner bears the initial
burden of providing reasons why a supporting disclosure does
not enable a claim. As stated in In re Marzocchi,
439 F.2d 220, 223, 169 USPQ 367, 369 (CCPA 1971):
[A] specification disclosure which contains a
teaching of the manner and process of making and
using the invention in terms which correspond in
scope to those used in describing and defining the
subject matter sought to be patented must be taken
as in compliance with the enabling requirement of
the first paragraph of § 112 unless there is reason
to doubt the objective truth of the statements
contained therein which must be relied on for
enabling support.
Having carefully reviewed the specification, including
the working examples, in light of the examiner’s commentary on
pages 3 through 5 of the Examiner’s Answer,
and the arguments on pages 13 through 37 of appellants’ main
Brief, we hold that the examiner has not set forth a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007