Appeal No. 1997-3370
Application 08/472,599
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and reads as follows:
1. A D-arabinitol dehdrogenase enzyme capable of catalyzing the oxidation of
D- arabinitol and substantially incapable of catalyzing the oxidation of D-mannitol and that
is substantially free of other enzymes capable of oxidizing D-mannitol.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 12, February 26, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 10, December 16, 1996)
for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Claims 1-4, 37-38 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for
failing to provide an enabling disclosure. An analysis of whether the claims under appeal
are supported by an enabling disclosure requires a determination of whether that
disclosure contains sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the appealed
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007