Appeal No. 2000-0460
Application No. 08/444,584
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and remand the application to the examiner to consider the
following issues and to take appropriate action.
As set forth at page 2 of the Answer3, the references relied upon by the
examiner are:
Testa et al. (Testa) 5,676,942 Oct. 14, 1997
Bizollon et al. (Bizollon), “Benefit of the Combination Interferon (IFN) – Ribavirin in
the Treatment of C Viral Reinfections Following Hepatic Transplantation (HT),”
French Rev. Gastro-Enterology, Vol. 30, No. 297, Case No. ID0492 (1994)
GROUND OF REJECTION
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18-21 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bizollon in view of Testa.
DISCUSSION
As set forth, supra, the Answer presents, for our review, a single ground of
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies
on Bizollon and Testa. See Answer, page 3. While, the examiner finds (Answer,
page 2), “appellants’ statement of the issues in the brief is correct”, the issue
presented by appellants bears little relationship to the ground of rejection presented
for review. Specifically, in contrast to the ground of rejection presented in the
Answer, the issue on appeal presented by appellants (Brief, page 4) is “[w]hether
[c]laims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16 and 18-21 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
3 Paper No. 32, mailed April 13, 1999.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007