Appeal No. 2006-1389 Page 8
Application No. 09/912,471
amount effective to degrade RNA in the materials, we conclude that the examiner has
set forth a prima facie case of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Again, the fact
that Simell describes other embodiments of the prior art method that do not use acid
phosphatase is irrelevant in this context.
The examiner’s rejection of claim 81 as anticipated by Simell is affirmed. As
discussed above, claims 82-93 and 96-124 fall with claim 81.
Obviousness
Having determined that Simell anticipates the claimed invention, we need not
reach the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Simell.
Time Period for Response
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
Toni R. Scheiner )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Eric Grimes )
Administrative Patent Judge )
) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
Lora M. Green )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007