Appeal No. 1998-1987
Application No. 07/915,783
Mitchell, “An update on candidate malaria vaccines,” Parasitology, Vol. 98, pp.
829-847 (1989)
Claims 11-16, 18, 27, 29, 68-80, 84-88, and 90-100 stand rejected under
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
Claims 11-16, 18, 27, 29, and 68-80 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as unsupported by an enabling disclosure.
Claims 11-16, 18, 27, 29, 68-80, 84-88, and 90-100 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as not enabled throughout their full scope.
Claims 11-16, 18, 27, 29, and 68-80 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by, or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over, either of Schmidt-Ullrich or Kilejian.
Claims 11-16, 18, 27, 29, and 68-80 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as anticipated by, or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over, Epstein.
Claims 18 and 68 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by, or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over, any one of Howard,
Newbold, or Epstein.
Claims 84–88 and 90-100 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over either of Schmidt-Ullrich or Kilejian.
We affirm the obviousness-type double patenting rejection and all of the
§§ 102/103 rejections. We reverse both rejections for nonenablement, as well as
the rejection based solely on § 103.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007