Appeal No. 2002-1291 Page 9
Application No. 08/693,052
exceeded that of the components Duphapind® and Baypamun®. See Appeal
Brief, pages 14-15. Unexpected results, however, cannot be used to overcome
a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation. See In re Wiggins, 488
F.2d 538, 543, 179 USPQ 421, 425 (CCPA 1978).
3. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 23, 24 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Mayr II with Mayr I.
Mayr II is relied upon as set forth above. The rejection acknowledges that
Mayr II does not specifically describe inactivation of the described viral strains.
Mayr II is relied upon for its description of the inactivation of poxvirus strains that
are intended to induce non-specific immunity. The rejection concludes:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007