Appeal No. 2002-0449 Page 8
Application No. 09/037,409
claimed. . . . The disclosure must allow one skilled in the art to visualize or
recognize the identity of the subject matter purportedly described.”).
The examiner should consider whether the instantly claimed products, and
their methods of making and use, are adequately described in the instant
specification.
Summary
The examiner has not shown that the claimed protein, purified to
homogeneity, would have been obvious in light of the prior art. We therefore
reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, we recommend that, on
return of this case, the examiner consider whether the claims meet the
enablement and written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
REVERSED
Sherman D. Winters )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Eric Grimes )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Lora M. Green )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007