Appeal 2007-1139
Application 10/052,664
ENABLEMENT
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
because, “since the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific
and substantial asserted utility or a well established utility . . . , one skilled in
the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.” (Answer
15.) Because we are reversing the utility rejection, we also reverse the
enablement rejection of claim 1.
CONCLUSION
In summary, as the Examiner has failed to establish that the polypeptide
of claim 1 lacks a patentable utility, we reverse.
REVERSED
Ssc
ROCHE PALO ALTO LLC
PATENT LAW DEPARTMENT M/S A2-250
3431 HILLVIEW AVENUE
PALO ALTO, CA 94304
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Last modified: September 9, 2013