Appeal No. 1999-1417
Application 08/268,730
Second, as best we can ascertain from the briefings, applicants do not point to any
specific passage or passages in the literature citations listed in the specification,
paragraph bridging pages 13 and 14. Nor does it appear that applicants have even
supplied copies of these references for the record. Viewing the situation in this light, we
find that applicants’ argument predicated on pages 13 and 14 of the specification is
incomplete. Third, according to applicants, an advantage of the products of the present
invention (N-acyl-lysogangliosides), which “sets them apart” from gangliosides, is their
ability to prevent and to combat neurotoxic action (specification, paragraph bridging pages
15 and 16).
In their Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, applicants refer to several literature articles
1
published after the effective filing date of this application. It is not entirely clear, however,
why applicants rely on these post-dated articles. To the extent that applicants rely on these
articles to “supplement” their specification, or to “substantiate” procedures outlined in the
specification (Appeal Brief, sentence bridging pages 18
and 19; and page 22, last paragraph), such reliance is misplaced. See In re Glass,
492 F.2d 1228, 1232, 181 USPQ 31, 34 (CCPA 1974); Ex parte Hitzeman, 9 USPQ2d
1821, 1823-24 (Bd. Pat. App. & Interf. 1987). To the extent that applicants rely on these
1This application is a continuation of parent application 07/443,657, filed
November 30, 1989. Further, according to the examiner, applicants “have an Italian
foreign priority date of 12-02-88,” based on Italian application 48618A/88 (Examiner’s
Answer, page 6, first paragraph).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007