Appeal No. 2005-2739 Page 10
Application No. 09/966,893
carrier. Appellants argue that “Sharp would not have conveyed to the skilled artisan the
specific idea of producing PPCA in an insect cell for the purpose of producing a
pharmaceutical composition” given “the state of the art at the time of the Sharp
disclosure” as decribed in “the background section of [the present] application” (id.).
In our view, Sharp’s disclosure shares a similarity of subject matter with the
claimed pharmaceutical compositions, but does not “clearly and unequivocally” describe
them. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 8-13 as anticipated by Sharp is reversed.
Summary
The rejections of claims 8-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as lacking
enablement and adequate written descriptive support are reversed. The rejection of
claims 8-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) is reversed as well.
REVERSED
Toni R. Scheiner )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Demetra J. Mills )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Eric Grimes )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007