Appeal 2007-2371
Application 10/426,654
ascertaining the invention, it does not follow that limitations from the
specification may be read into the claims.”).
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 encompasses the adjuvant
formulated by Anselem, and that Anselem anticipates claim 1. Thus, we
affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1. Claims 2, 6, 8, and
20-22 fall with claim 1 because they were not argued separately. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
4. OBVIOUSNESS -- CLAIMS 3-5, 7, AND 9
Claims 3-5, 7, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Anselem and Roth (Answer 4-5).
Claim 3 is representative of the rejected claims, and recites “[t]he
method of claim 1 wherein the vaccine is administered to the human or
animal by placing the vaccine in a food or a beverage.” Conceding that
Anselem does not disclose administering its vaccine in a food or beverage,
the Examiner cites Roth as disclosing that “vaccines can be included in
food,” and concludes that it would therefore have been obvious to administer
Anselem’s vaccine in a food material (id. at 5).
Appellant argues that because Roth does not remedy Anselem’s
failure to meet all the limitations of claim 1, “assuming, arguendo, that the
proposed combination of Anselem and Roth is a valid one, the dependent
claims rejected based on the combination are patentable for at least the
reasons set forth herein in support of the patentability of parent claim 1”
(Br. 12).
As discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that Anselem
teaches all of the limitations in claim 1. Appellant’s argument fails to
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013