Appeal No. 1998-3388
Application 08/370,551
introducing a culture of the Pseudomonas strain of the claim into an environment,
having a neutral pH, for remediation purposes. At page 3244, col. 2, Criddle describes
the results of tests which sought "to degrade CT in ground water from the Moffett site."
(Emphasis added.) However, we find no description of the introduction of this
Pseudomonas strain into any environment of the type called for by the claim. Thus,
while Criddle provides a significant level of information relating to the ability of the claim
designated Pseudomonas strain to degrade or convert carbon tetrachloride to less
harmful substances, it does not describe the method presently claimed and fails to
anticipate the rejected claims. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 9 - 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
In rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) the examiner notes that Lewis
teaches the biodegradation of CT using the claimed organism. However, on the record
before us, we find that the issues relating to this rejection have not been fully and
completely briefed in a manner which permits meaningful review. In the Second
Supplemental Brief, filed December 8, 1997 (Paper No. 42)2 at pages 6-8, appellants
renew their argument that the series of declarations filed in this application under 37
2 The Second Supplemental Brief filed December 8, 1997 states that it is
intended to replace the earlier filed Brief filed under 37 CFR § 1.192 and Supplemental
Brief filed under 37 CFR § 1.192. In considering the issues raised by this appeal, we
refer to this Second Supplemental Brief as representing appellants' position and
arguments directed to the rejections on appeal.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007