Ex Parte HORWITZ - Page 3




            Appeal No. 2002-1740                                                                              
            Application No. 08/447,398                                                                        

                   Reference cited by Appellant:                                                              
            Kubica, George, ed., The Mycobacteria: A Sourcebook, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York,               
            pp. 929-930, (1984)                                                                               

            Grounds of Rejection                                                                              
                   Claims 47-67 and 70 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for              
            lack of enablement as to how to make and use the invention within the scope of the                
            claims.                                                                                           
                   Claims 47-49, 52, 53, 55, 57, 59, 60, 62 and 63  stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.            
            § 103(a) as unpatentable in view of Pal in light of Borremans, Salata, Wallis, Zhang,             
            Munk and Verbon.                                                                                  
                   We reverse the rejection for lack of enablement and affirm the rejection of the            
            claims for obviousness.                                                                           


                                                DISCUSSION                                                    
                   In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given consideration to the                
            appellant's 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 appellant 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 appellant's           


                                                      3                                                       





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007