Appeal No. 1996-2209
Application No. 08/031,346
“When a properly claimed invention meets at least one stated objective, utility under § 101 is
clearly shown.”).
In our view, the specification pages 22-32, provides test data which, when assessed
from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, is probative of the appellant's assertion
of utility for the claimed process. For example, the specification pages 26 and 32 provides
data associated with a 2 ½ year study of patients with neurodermatitis treated with the
autohemologous immune treatment of the invention. In view of the above, at least a single
credible utility for the claimed process for the production of germicidally treated suspensions
is provided in the specification and the rejection of the claims for lack of utility is reversed.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable for obviousness
over DT’91 in view of Zee, Wiesehahn and Edelson.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is well-established that the conclusion that the
claimed subject matter is prima facie obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown by
some objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art that would have led that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the
references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007