Appeal No. 2005-1076
Application No. 10/047,941
Appealed claims 134-154 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, description and enablement requirements.
Appellants submit that "claims 134-146 should be treated as
a group, and claims 147-154 should be treated as a separate
group" (page 4 of Brief). Accordingly, claims 134-146 stand or
fall together, as do claims 147-154.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, it is our opinion that the
examiner's § 112, first paragraph rejections are well-founded.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejections for
essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer.
We agree with the examiner that the original specification
does not provide descriptive support for the claim 134 recitation
that Q can be NR'.1 In response to the examiner's criticism that
there is no "Q" mentioned in the specification, let alone a
description that such moiety can be NR', appellants simply offer
the conclusory remark that "Appellants respectively [sic,
respectfully?] assert that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would appreciate that NR' as recited in claim 134 could be used
in place of O in the claimed invention" (page 4 of Brief, last
1 As properly noted by appellants, claim 47 and claims
dependent thereon do not recite this limitation.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007