Appeal No. 2000-1559 Page 4
Application No. 07/911,593
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Welter.
Deliberations
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation and review of the
following materials:
(1) the instant specification, including all of the appealed claims;
(2) applicants' Appeal Brief (Paper No. 41) and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 43);
(3) the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 42);
(4) the above-cited prior art references relied on by the examiner; and
(5) the Zissis et al. reference, relied on by applicants in their Appeal Brief.1
Our deliberations have not included evaluation of the De Mol et al., Hanlon et al.,
Haffejee, and Santosham et al. references, discussed in Appendix D of applicants'
Appeal Brief. Those references were not admitted by the examiner, pursuant to the
provisions of 37 CFR § 1.195 (Examiner's Answer, paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5).
On consideration of the record, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and vacate-in-
part the examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims.
Zygraich
For a prior art reference to anticipate in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102, every element
of the claimed invention must be identically shown in a single reference. Diversitech
Corp. v. Century Steps, Inc., 850 F.2d 675, 677, 7 USPQ2d 1315, 1317 (Fed. Cir.
1 Zissis et al., "Protection Studies in Colostrum-Deprived Piglets of a Bovine Rotavirus Vaccine
Candidate Using Human Rotavirus Strains for Challenge," The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Vol. 148,
No. 6, pp. 1061-1068 (December 1983)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007