Appeal No. 2004-0290
Application No. 09/742,692
5 et. seq., of the specification with pages 4 et. seq., of
Beggs). In addition, for “[t]he part having the high binding
affinity,” the present specification and Beggs provide nearly
identical descriptions. For example, both the specification and
Beggs disclose the same antibodies, peptides, pepidomimics and
other organic molecules. The only distinction in the disclosures
of the part having the high binding affinity is that appellants’
specification includes two additional paragraphs describing the
pI of the reagent having the high binding affinity. Accordingly,
since there appears to be vast overlap between the operable
enzymes disclosed in appellants’ specification and Beggs, it is
incumbent upon appellants to clearly establish a patentable
distinction between the claimed and referenced enzymes, i.e.,
appellants must specify particular enzymes that are within the
scope of the appealed claims but not fairly taught by Beggs.
Indeed, who is in a better position than appellants to establish
on this record any claimed enzymes that are not fairly taught by
Beggs. As noted above, appellants and Beggs share the same
assignee, namely, Unilever Home and Personal Care USA, Division
of CONOPCO, Inc. However, appellants can only offer that “Beggs
does not appear to disclose the same antibody part, or other
stain-binding parts as those utilized in the present invention”
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007