Appeal No. 2002-1291 Page 11
Application No. 08/693,052
teach or suggest a composition comprising a paramunizing component derived
from an inactivated poxvirus, the rejection fails to provide a teaching, suggestion,
or motivation to inactivate the non-paramunizing component, and thus the
combination fails to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness and is reversed.
CONCLUSION
Because the examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of
unpatentability, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed. But because Mayr II teaches all of the
components of the claimed composition, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REVERSED-IN-PART
)
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 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007