Appeal No. 1997-1856
Application 08/142,284
In rejecting the appealed claims on non-prior art grounds, the examiner relies on the
following references:
Kruse et al. (Kruse), “Synthesis and Evaluation of Multisubstrate Inhibitors of an Oncogene-
Encoded Tyrosine-Specific Protein Kinase,” J. Med. Chem., Vol. 31, No. 9, pp. 1768-772
(1988)
Levitzki, “Tyrphostins: tyrosine Kinase blockers as novel antiproliferative agents
and dissectors of signal transduction,” The FASEB Journal, Vol. 6, pp. 3275-282
(Nov. 1992)
The issues presented for review are: (1) whether the examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as based on a non-enabling
disclosure; and (2) whether the examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 through 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.
On consideration of the record, we reverse the examiner's rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. We remand this application to the examiner for
clarification and further proceedings respecting the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
35 U.S.C. § 112, FIRST PARAGRAPH
The examiner acknowledges that appellant's specification enables any person
skilled in the art to make the instantly claimed compounds (Examiner's Answer, page 4,
lines 4 and 5). The examiner argues, however, that the specification does not enable any
person skilled in the art to use the claimed compounds (Examiner's Answer, page 4, lines
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007