Appeal No. 2005-1169 Page 3
Application No. 09/900,063
assaying said prolactin receptor gene presented in said sample for a
polymorphism;
correlating whether a statistically significant association exists between
said polymorphism; and
litter size in an animal of a particular breed, strain, population, or group
whereby said animal can be characterized for said marker.
The examiner relies upon the following reference:
Thisted, “What is a P-value?,” Departments of Statistics and Health Studies, The
University of Chicago, (http:/www.stat.uchicago.edu/~thisted), pp. 1-6 (1998)
Claims 1-3, 8-11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 26-29, 36-38, 54 and 55, all of the claims
on appeal, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, on the grounds
that the subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to
reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time
the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, i.e., lack of
adequate written description. The appealed claims also stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, on the grounds that the specification is not
enabling to practice the full scope of the invention. After careful review of the
record and consideration of the issues before us, we affirm the written description
rejection as to claims 1-3, 8-11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 26 and 36-38 and reverse as to
claims 27-29, 54 and 55. With respect to the enablement rejection, we reverse
the rejection with respect to claims 27-29, 54 and 55, but because we affirmed
the written description rejection as to claims 1-3, 8-11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 26 and 36-
38, we decline to reach the merits of the enablement rejection as to those claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007