Appeal No. 2006-2575
Application No. 10/025,567
wherein the colony-forming bacteria are selected from the group consisting
of P. anaerobius, C. sticklandii, C. aminophilium[sic], E. Coli [sic], Listeria,
Salmonella and Campylobacter . . . .” (Answer 5.)
The Examiner notes that the Specification “discloses only five
microbial adherence inhibitors,” whereas the claim term “‘immunogen’
could be peptide, protein, bacteria, virus, or parasite.” (Id. at 5-6). The
Examiner argues that one cannot make egg antibody to a colony-forming
immunogen until one identifies the immunogen, and that “[g]iven the
indefinite number of colony-forming immunogen[s], there is insufficient
guidance as to the binding specificity of the microbial adherence inhibitor.”
(Id. at 6.)
The examiner summarizes the rationale for the enablement rejection
as follows:
Given the indefinite number of undisclosed colony-
forming immunogen[s], it is unpredictable which undisclosed
microbial inhibitor in the form of chicken antibody IgY
including IgA and IgM in the albumin would bind specifically
to said undisclosed colony-forming immunogen, in turn, would
be useful for inhibiting the adherence of any protein wasting
immunogen in the food animals or any living being. Given the
indefinite number of undisclosed microbial adherence
inhibitor[s], there is no in vivo working example demonstrating
that the claimed microbial adherence inhibitor is effective for
inhibiting the adherence of all colony-forming immunogen
(bacteria, parasites, virus, etc[.]) . . . in the rumen or intestinal
tracts of food animal.
(Id. at 7.)
Appellants argue that the Specification describes the steps required to
make and use the claimed compositions, including the preparation of
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013