Ex parte ROSENBLUM et al. - Page 3




             Appeal No. 1997-3542                                                                                     
             Application No. 08/192,507                                                                               


             Reference relied on by appellant:                                                                        
             Ritz et al. (Ritz), “Expression of Common Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Antigen                           
             (CALLA) by Lymphomas of B-Cell and T-Cell Lineage,” Blood, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 648-662                   
             (1981).                                                                                                  
                                                      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, mailed February 12, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning                    
             in support of the rejection, and to the appellants’ brief  (Paper No. 9, filed May 23, 1996)             
             for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.  As a consequence of our review, we make the                 
             determinations which follow.                                                                             
             Issues                                                                                                   
             1.     The specification is objected to and claims 3 and 14 stand rejected under 35                      
             U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for lack of enablement.                                                    
             2.     Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph for failing to                   
             particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which appellants regard as the            
             invention.                                                                                               


                                                          3                                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007