Appeal No. 2001-0355
Application No. 08/750,069
unpatentable over Pedersen in view of Puls with or without Pulpzyme HA™.
Finally, all of the appealed claims further stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art.
On page 6 of the brief, under the heading “GROUPING OF CLAIMS” , the
appellants state that “[c]laims 17-21 are believed to be separately patentable from
claims 1-5 and 7-16". It follows that, in assessing the merits of the rejections before us,
we need focus only on independent claims 1 and 17 with which the remaining
dependent claims before us will stand or fall. 37 CFR 1.192 (c)(7) (1999).
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by the appellants and by
the examiner, we refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete exposition thereof.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain each of the rejections before us in
this appeal.
The § 112 rejection
This rejection is based upon the examiner’s determination that the appellants’
specification disclosure is nonenabling with respect to the here claimed invention
because an acceptable deposit of the strains disclosed in the specification has not
been made. See, for example, 37 CFR 1.809 and the Manual of Patent Examining
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007