Ex parte EISENHARDT et al. - Page 7




              Appeal No. 1999-1229                                                                                      
              Application 08/543,975                                                                                    
              F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 1996).  This the examiner has not                        
              done.                                                                                                     
                     Here, as we understand it, the examiner is arguing that a species claim which is                   
              directed to a solid, orally-administrable composition comprising the two lactases taught by               
              Rosado and Barillas, and we aren’t sure which claim(s) because the examiner does not                      
              specify regardless of the fact that they each contain different limitations, would have been              
              obvious in view of the teachings of Kan because one ordinary skill in the art would have                  
              expected a “superior processing effect” by combining the individual lactases derived from                 
              K. lactis and A. niger into a single treatment.  Thus, because the examiner believes that the             
              species claim(s) would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art she concludes that the            
              generic claims also would have been obvious to such persons at the time the application                   
                       1                                                                                                
              was filed.                                                                                                
                     We find the examiner’s arguments unpersuasive for the following reasons.                           
                     First, contrary to the examiner’s contention, we find no teaching or suggestion in the             
              Kan patent as to a “superior processing effect” being obtained by simultaneously                          
              administering a solid, orally-administrable composition comprising lactases derived from                  
              K. lactis and A. niger, in vivo or in vitro.  Nor do we find any teaching or suggestion in the            


                     In making the rejection, we point out that the examiner has apparently only relied on the1                                                                                                 
              teachings of Rosado, Barillas and Kan to support her position.  The examiner mentions Medow only in the   
              context of how its teachings differ from the claimed invention, but has not applied the teachings of the  
              reference in an affirmative manner.  Thus, we find that although cited in the statement of the rejection, the
              examiner has not relied the teachings of Medow, Gekas or Sipos, to support her arguments.  Therefore, we  
              presume that she believes these references to be cumulative and have treated them accordingly.            
                                                           7                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007