Ex Parte Krieger et al - Page 5


                     Appeal No. 2006-1993                                                                            Page 5                         
                     Application No. 10/147,651                                                                                                     

                              atherosclerotic plaque in the aortic sinuses and progressive heart                                                    
                              block and determining the effects of the compound on cardiac                                                          
                              fibrosis, myocardial infarction, defects in electrical conductance,                                                   
                              atherosclerosis, unstable plaque, stroke, diseases associated with                                                    
                              abnormal cardiac structure or function, or elevated cholesterol or                                                    
                              lipoprotein levels in the mouse relative to control mice not treated                                                  
                              with the compound, does not reasonably provide enablement for                                                         
                              the method comprising administering a compound to a mouse                                                             
                              having decreased expression of active SR-BI and ApoE for reasons                                                      
                              presented in the office actions mailed August 25, 2004 and March                                                      
                              16, 2005.  The specification does not enable any person skilled in                                                    
                              the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly                                                         
                              connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope                                                        
                              with these claims.                                                                                                    
                     Examiner’s Answer, page 3.                                                                                                     
                              “[A] specification disclosure which contains a teaching of the manner and                                             
                     process of making and using the invention in terms which correspond in scope to                                                
                     those used in describing and defining the subject matter sought to be patented                                                 
                     must be taken as in compliance with the enabling requirement of the first                                                      
                     paragraph of § 112 unless there is reason to doubt the objective truth of the                                                  
                     statements contained therein which must be relied on for enabling support.”  In re                                             
                     Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223, 169 USPQ 367, 369 (CCPA 1971) (emphasis in                                                       
                     original).  “[It] is incumbent upon the Patent Office, whenever a rejection on this                                            
                     basis is made, to explain why it doubts the truth or accuracy of any statement in                                              
                     a supporting disclosure and to back up assertions of its own with acceptable                                                   
                     evidence or reasoning which is inconsistent with the contested statement.”  Id. at                                             
                     224, 169 USPQ at 370.  Here, the examiner has not provided “acceptable                                                         
                     evidence or reasoning which is inconsistent” with the specification, and therefore                                             
                     has not met the initial burden of showing nonenablement.                                                                       






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007