Appeal No. 2006-2575
Application No. 10/025,567
immunogens, immunization of chickens, preparation of the dried antibody-
containing composition from the harvested eggs, and feeding the
composition to cattle. (Br. 15-16.) Appellants also point out that claims 3,
5, 12, and 24-29 are limited to compositions targeted to specific organisms,
and “do not include all targeted colony-forming immunogens.” (Id. at 16.)
Appellants argue that the specification provides “a representative
number of species of colony-forming protein-wasting immunogens to
describe the genus identified by the terms target colony-forming
immunogen,” and that “[t]hese immunogens are well known protein-wasting
immunogens.” (Id.) Appellants urge that the exemplified organisms are
“sufficient to identify a genus of like immunogens to a person skilled in the
art,” and that Stolle2 would have made the skilled artisan aware of
deleterious bacteria. (Id.)
The Examiner bears the burden of establishing that practicing the full
scope of the claimed subject matter would have required undue
experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561-62, 27 USPQ2d 1510,
1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[T]he PTO bears an initial burden of setting forth a
reasonable explanation as to why it believes that the scope of protection
provided by that claim is not adequately enabled by the description of the
invention provided in the specification of the application.”) .
While the specification must enable the skilled artisan to practice the
full scope of the claimed subject matter, the specification need not
“necessarily describe how to make and use every possible variant of the
2Stolle et al., U.S. Patent 4,748,018, issued May 31, 1988.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013