Ex Parte Dolnik et al - Page 3



             Appeal No.  2005-1918                                                              Παγε 3               
             Application No. 09/946,396                                                                              
             10-50% anhydrogalactose residues [galactose residues],” and a “protein content [ ]                      
             disclosed as being as low as 0.00%” (Answer, page 3, first and second sets of brackets                  
             in the original).                                                                                       
                    According to appellants, “the Gebert reference does not support a prima facie                    
             case of anticipation” (Brief, page 5) because it is not enabling for a galactomannan                    
             composition containing less than 0.1% protein by weight, despite “the protein content                   
             values [of 0.06% and 0.00%] reflected in the Gebert reference at column 15, Table 4”                    
             (id.).  Appellants argue that Gebert’s most restrictive claim (claim 2) is limited to “purified         
             galactomannans ‘with less than 0.5% by weight’ of protein” (Brief, pages 7-8), thus, the                
             “extremely low protein contents mentioned in Table 4 of Gebert, are not material to [the]               
             patentability [of Gebert’s claims] and [ ] should not be given the same deference and                   
             presumption of validity extended to more significant portions of the disclosure.”  Id.,                 
             page 8.                                                                                                 
                    Nevertheless, “[i]n patent prosecution, the examiner is entitled to reject                       
             applications as anticipated by a prior art patent without conducting an inquiry into                    
             whether or not that patent is enabled or whether or not it is the claimed material (as                  
             opposed to the unclaimed disclosures) in that patent that are at issue.”  Amgen, Inc. v.                
             Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1355, 65 USPQ2d 1385, 1416 (Fed. Cir.                      
             2003) (footnote and citation omitted).  Thus, “a presumption arises that both the claimed               
             and unclaimed disclosures in a prior art patent are enabled” (id.), which appellants “can               
             then overcome [ ] by proving that the relevant disclosures of the prior art patent are not              
             enabled” (id.).                                                                                         
                    Appellants argue that “the methods disclosed in Gebert cannot produce a purified                 
             galactomannan composition with a protein content lower than 0.40%” (Brief, page 5),                     
             and that any reported values of less than 0.40% “are likely[ ] due to measuring errors                  


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007