Appeal No. 1998-2010
Application No. 08/542,861
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 17 and 27 are illustrative of the claims on appeal and are
reproduced in the appendix to the Appeal Brief (attached).
The reference relied upon by the examiner is:
Kayegama et al. (Kayegama), “In vitro inhibition of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
type 1 replication by C2 symmetry-based HIV protease inhibitors as single agents or in
combinations,” Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 926-933
(1992)
Grounds of Rejection
Claims 1, 5, 7-11, and 17-25 stand rejected under the judicial doctrine of being
drawn to an improper Markush group.
Claims 1, 5, 7-11, 17-25, 27-30 and 32 to 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph as based on a disclosure which does not enable the invention as
claimed.
Grouping of Claims
In the Appeal Brief, pages 4-5, appellants include a section entitled “Grouping of
Claims.” Although that section is not entirely clear, we believe that appellants request
consideration of product claims separate from method claims and indicate that the claims
do not stand or fall together. Beyond that, appellants have not presented clear alternative
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007