Appeal No. 2001-1410
Application No. 08/472,630
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given consideration to the
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the noted rejection, we make reference to the examiner's
Answer for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellants'
Brief and Reply Brief for the appellants' arguments thereagainst. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Claims 64-67 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as obvious over Toth.
To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed
invention, either explicitly or inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44
USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
According to the examiner (Answer, pages 3-4):
Toth ... disclose of a method for the detection of antibodies against
streptococcal deoxyribonuclease B (Dnase B). Toth further discloses of
preparing such antibodies by administering to animals, preferably rabbits,
stretococcal Dnase B as an immunogen. (See column 2, lines 30-40).
Toth also discloses that a purified Dnase B enzyme can be obtained by
removing any non-specific constitutents which are present by known
methods (i.e., immunoabsorption). This purified Dnase B preparation can
then be used to obtain antibodies against DNase B in mammals.
All of the claims before us on appeal have the express requirement that the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007