Appeal No. 1999-2141
Application No. 08/657,164
Cir. 1995). Thus, as stated above, all that is necessary to satisfy the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is to convey to those skilled in the art,
that, as of the filing date the applicant’s were in possession of the invention. Vas-Cath
Inc. v. Makurar, supra.
Appellant argues that the invention as now claimed is supported by the
specification at pages 4-5. The specification page 5, line 5 appears to indicate that the
fraction 6 obtained by HPLC can be used in the form obtained directly as a cell growth
promoter or subjected to further purification. Thus, the specification would appear to
support purification of the protein in a single HPLC pass. The specification would
reasonably appear to convey to those skilled in the art, that, as of the filing date, the
applicant’s were in possession of the invention. The rejection of claims 8-10 under 35
U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph is reversed.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed. The rejection of
claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may
be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
REVERSED
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007