Appeal No. 1999-1427
Application No. 08/372,429
lipospermine. The examiner does not appear to question the objective truth of
the statements in the specification.
The examiner nonetheless argues that the example does not adequately
support the claims because the specification does not show that the claimed
method induces a protective immune response. The claims, however, are not
directed to a method of preventing infection, or a method of vaccination, or the
equivalent. The claims merely recite a “method of inducing a mucosal immune
response.” The examiner has not disputed that the specification’s working
example shows induction of a mucosal immune response. Thus, notwithstanding
the lack of evidence of protective effect, the working example appears to
exemplify and adequately support the claimed method. Practicing the claimed
method does not require producing a protective immune response.
The examiner’s concern may be the claims would lack utility under
35 U.S.C. § 101 if the recited method did not induce a protective response. No
utility rejection is before us, however, nor does the evidence of record appear to
support one. As Appellant points out, even if the claimed method generates an
immune response that is less than effectively protective with respect to a given
antigen, the method would still have utility as a screening assay. See the Reply
Brief, page 2.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007