Ex Parte KEARNEY - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2002-1366                                                                                       
              Application No. 09/069,628                                                                                 
                     The references are relied upon by the examiner are:                                                 
              DeGreve et al (DeGreve)                           5,254,799            Oct. 19, 1993                       
              Ladner et al (Ladner)                             5,223,409            June 29, 1993                       
              Walker et al. (Walker), “Immunology of Spores and Sporeforms,” Spores, Vol. 5, pp.                         
              321-337 (1972)                                                                                             


              Grounds of Rejection                                                                                       
                     Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by DeGreve.                       
                     Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Walker in                        
              view of Ladner.                                                                                            
                     We reverse these rejections.                                                                        


                                                     DISCUSSION                                                          
                     In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given consideration to the                         
              appellant's specification and claims, to the applied 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 rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s                          
              Answer for the examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellant's                    
              Brief for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.  As a consequence of our review, we                      
              make the determinations which follow.                                                                      




                                                           2                                                             



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007