Appeal No. 1999-0623
Application No. 08/316,802
Appellant’s claim 26 is drawn to “[a] drug delivery composition … comprising
a synthetic bioelastic polypeptide polymer comprising repeating elastomeric units
… wherein said repeating units comprise amino acid residues selected from the
group consisting of hydrophobic amino acid and glycine residues and wherein said
repeating units exist in a conformation having a ß-turn.”
In light of the teachings of the prior art it does not appear that the phrase in
question is vague, as suggested by the examiner. In addition, appellant refers (e.g.,
Brief, page 10) to sections of the specification to support the claims. The examiner
makes no attempt in the Answer to address those sections identified by appellant.
Therefore, it is unclear to us why the examiner maintains that the phrase
“hydrophobic amino acid and glycine residues” is vague in view of appellant’s
specification, arguments and cited prior art (made of record as Appendix B of the
Brief).
Therefore, on this record, we are compelled to find that the examiner failed to
meet his burden of presenting the evidence necessary to sustain a rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 4-8, 10-16, 18-23, 26 and 28-
38 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007