Appeal No. 2001-1925 Page 6
Application No. 08/677,838
the specification fails to provide an enabling disclosure. The rejection does not
set forth other factors, such as the unpredictability of the art or the level of skill in
the art that would support the analysis of the pictures in the rejection, and
buttress the conclusion that the specification fails to provide an enabling
disclosure.1 Thus, the examiner has failed to meet the burden of setting forth a
prima facie case of enablement, and the rejection is reversed.
OTHER MATTERS
Upon return of the application, the examiner may wish to look at the
format of claim 1. Claim 1 specifies that the nuclease solution is comprised of
components (a), (b) and (c). There is also a limitation of the claim labeled with
(d), which would also make it a component of the nuclease, but the limitation is
actually drawn to the step of applying the solution to the skin. Thus, it appears
as if the “(d)” should be deleted from the beginning of the application step in
order to avoid confusion.
1 The two references discussed in the rejection as evidence of the
unpredictability of the art, i.e., Tackett and Pacifici, are again directed to the
putative theory of operation of the invention, and not the treatment of wrinkles
and age spots generally.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007