Ex parte MIYADA et al. - Page 2



              Appeal No. 1997-3535                                                                                          
              Application 08/476,394                                                                                        




                     Claim 10 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and reads as follows:                                 
                     10.     A method for detecting the presence of Candida organism in a host, which                       
              method comprises the step of examining a sample from said host for the presence of  D-                        
              arabinitol utilizing D-arabinitol dehydrogenase enzyme, said enzyme being capable of                          
              utilizing D-arabinitol as a substrate and substantially incapable of utilizing D-mannitol as a                
              substrate.                                                                                                    

              Grounds of Rejection                                                                                          
                     Claims 10-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 112, first paragraph for failing to                      

              provide an enabling disclosure.                                                                               
                                                                                                                           
                                                   DISCUSSION                                                               
                     In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given consideration to the                            
              appellants= specification and claims, 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 noted rejection, we make reference to the                       
              examiner's Answer for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the                        
              appellants= Brief for the appellants= arguments thereagainst.   We have considered this                       

              appeal in light of our decisions in related Appeal Nos. 1997-3370 (Serial No. 08/472,599                      
              and 1997-3378 (Serial No. 08/487,976).   As a consequence of our review, we make the                          
              determinations which follow.                                                                                  



                                                             2                                                              




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007