Appeal No. 1996-2209
Application No. 08/031,346
In the present case, it is the examiner’s position that the specification does not set forth
sufficient guidance and teachings to enable the use of the claimed process for the production
of germicidally treated suspensions. The examiner has determined that the disclosure is too
broad, vague and unclear to allow the practitioner skilled in the art to practice the claimed
invention without undue experimentation. Answer, page 4. The examiner argues 1) there is
no teaching as to how to select the particular composition for the particular immunomodulatory
effect, 2) it is unclear as to what type of immunomodulatory and immuno-suppressive
processes the invention is drawn, and
3) there is no specific and defined teaching of any therapeutic composition in the
specification. Answer, pages 5-6.
Considering the Forman factors set forth above individually, it would appear that the
nature of the invention described in claim 1 is a process for the production of a germicidally
treated suspension. The specification, particularly Tables 4-6, pages 29-32 of the original
disclosure and Amendment C, pages 2-13 (Paper No. 5, October 20, 1993), sets forth
specific conditions treated, and compositions and dilutions to be administered to treat the
specific conditions using suspensions prepared by the process of the invention. Thus, the
specification would appear to provide direction and guidance in some detail as to how to use
the claimed invention for the treatment of various medical conditions, in the form of working
examples. In addition, the state of the prior art, as reflected in the cited references of record,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007