Appeal No. 1997-4272
Application No. 08/429,053
24).1 Although Appellants state that the claims stand or fall together (Appeal
Brief, page 4), we conclude that each claim presents distinct patentability issues.
Therefore, we will consider each of the claims individually.
1. Claim 23
The examiner rejected claim 23 as indefinite. The basis of the examiner’s
rejection is that the antigen solution defined by the recited process would contain
“essentially only the partially purified saccharose phosphate synthetase protein,”
and therefore monoclonal antibodies could not be obtained from the solution.
Examiner’s Answer, pages 5-6.2
Appellants argue that “claim 23 is clear since it now reads upon the cell
line wherein the recovered monoclonal antibodies are those of claim 11 and
therefore, it is believed to be specific what they are.” Supplement to the Appeal
Brief (Paper No. 18, filed March 12, 1997), page 2.
We agree with the examiner that claim 23 is indefinite. Claim 23 recites
the following process: (1) “extracting maize plants at low temperature by
grinding, centrifuging and filtration,” (2) “enriching the extract in protein by
precipitation with polyethylene glycol,” (3) “recovering the precipitate by
centrifugation,” (4) “dissolving the precipitate in a buffer solution,” and (5)
“recovering monoclonal hybridomas of claim 11 from the antigen solution.” As
1 The prior art relied on by the examiner refers to the enzyme as “sucrose phosphate synthase.”
Both the examiner and Appellants have treated the two names as synonymous, and we do the
same.
2 The examiner also rejected claim 23 as indefinite for reciting a “cell line of hybridomas.”
Examiner’s Answer, page 5. This basis of the rejection was overcome by Appellants’ amendment
of the claim to recite a “hybridoma cell line” in Paper No. 21 (filed July 25, 1997). The
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007