NOAH HARRISON

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 30, 2021

2021003603 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/096,214 04/11/2016 NOAH JAMES HARRISON NJH-0001-P 1906
68368 7590 06/30/2021
Barcelo, Harrison & Walker, LLP
2901 W. Coast Hwy
Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92663
EXAMINER
MARVICH, MARIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1633
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
dwalker@bhiplaw.com
josh@bhiplaw.com
rey@bhiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NOAH JAMES HARRISON1
Appeal 2021-003603
Application 15/096,214
Technology Center 1600
Before ERIC B. GRIMES, FRANCISCO C. PRATS,
and RACHEL H. TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judges.
GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to a
method of killing a pathogenic microbe in a patient, which have been
rejected as obvious and nonenabled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the inventor, Noah James
Harrison. Appeal Br. 2. We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant”
as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appeal 2021-003603
Application 15/096,214

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification states that “current treatment by many antimicrobial
medications may results in adverse events, which are more commonly
known as side effects. For example, administration of the antimicrobial
blasticidin S may cause death in humans, and administration of the
antibacterial agents ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin . . . increases the risk of
tendon rupture in humans.” Spec. ¶ 1.
The instant invention is directed toward “protecting eukaryotic ells
while killing microbes in vivo.” Id. ¶ 31. In an exemplary embodiment,
[a] patient is administered a recombinant viral vector, which
contains in its genome one or more antimicrobial resistance
genes. . . . [T]he viral vector preferably transfects only the
patient’s eukaryotic cells, so that pathogenic microbes will not
be transduced with the antimicrobial resistance gene. . . . [T]he
patient is also administered an antimicrobial medication, which
otherwise may be toxic to the patient or have undesirable side
effects on the patient (if the viral vector had not been
administered).
Id. ¶¶ 32–35 (reference numerals omitted).
Claims 1, 3–6, 9–11, 14, 21, 24, 26, and 31 are on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A method to kill a pathogenic microbe in a patient,
comprising:
transducing eukaryotic cells of the patient with a first
viral vector that will not transfect the pathogenic
microbe, the pathogenic microbe being an
extracellular pathogenic microbe or a tissue-
restricted pathogenic microbe, the first viral vector
is replication defective and encodes in a
recombinant genome of the first viral vector a first
antimicrobial resistance gene and a first promoter
Appeal 2021-003603
Application 15/096,214

3
operatively linked to the first antimicrobial
resistance gene; and
administering an antimicrobial medication to the patient.
Appeal Br. 41 (Claims App.).
In response to an election-of-species requirement, Appellant elected
treatment of bacterial infection using blasticidin S, where the patient is
administered an adenovirus-5 vector encoding the bsr resistance gene under
the control of a cytomegalovirus (CMV) promoter. See Reply to Restriction
Requirement filed Sept. 14, 2016.2
The claims stand rejected as follows:
Claims 1, 3–6, 9–11, 14, 21, 24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious based on Voigtlander3 and Federoff4 (Ans. 14) and
Claims 1, 3–6, 9–11, 14, 21, 24, 26, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
on the basis that the Specification does not enable the full scope of the
claims (Ans. 3).
OPINION
Obviousness
Claims 1, 3–6, 9–11, 14, 21, 24, and 26 stand rejected as obvious
based on Voigtlander and Federoff. The Examiner finds that Voigtlander

2 The Examiner states that the elected species is limited to treatment of
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (see, e.g., Ans. 4), but
the election-of-species requirement mailed August 25, 2016 was not so
limiting.
3 R. Voigtlander et al., A Novel Adenoviral Hybrid-vector System Carrying
a Plasmid Replicon for Safe and Efficient Cell and Gene Therapeutic
Application, Molecular Therapy–Nucleic Acids 2:e83 (2013).
4 Federoff et al., US 2008/0226601 A1; pub. Sept. 18, 2008.
Appeal 2021-003603
Application 15/096,214

4
teaches “that a construct comprising bsr under control of CMV can be
expressed from an adenovirus vector.” Ans. 14. The Examiner finds that
Voigtlander also teaches that “[i]n vitro blasticidin is used in selection. The
construct can be used in vivo in small animals” but “[w]hat is missing is
using this construct with the medication in vivo.” Id.
The Examiner finds that Federoff teaches “delivery of antibiotic
resistance genes to target organisms by viral vectors followed by
administration of antimicrobial medication”; specifically, “using herpes
virus encoding antibiotic resistances genes followed by administration of
antibiotic gel directly to the uterus of a mouse. Following antibiotic gel is
applied.” Id. (citing Federoff ¶ 117). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious “to incorporate the construct of Voigtlander et al in the
methods of therapy of Federoff et al.” because “the expanded method would
have allowed variable gene and medication use.” Id. at 15.
Appellant argues, among other things, that
Federoff teaches intracranial administration of the viral vector
in utero, and applies a topical antibiotic ointment to a surgical
site on the mother. The topical antibiotic applied to the skin of
the mother would not substantially reach the embryo, and is not
intended to be absorbed systemically. Accordingly, in Federoff,
the patient that is administered the viral vector and the patient
that is administered the antimicrobial medication are
functionally separate entities.
Appeal Br. 39.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not persuasively
shown that the cited references would have suggested the Appellant’s
claimed method, which requires transducing a patient’s cells with a viral
vector encoding an antimicrobial resistance gene and “administering an
Appeal 2021-003603
Application 15/096,214

5
antimicrobial medication to the patient”; i.e., administering the medication
to the same patient.
The Examiner acknowledges that Voigtlander does not teach this
limitation, and cites Federoff’s paragraph 117 to make up the difference.
Ans. 14. That paragraph describes an “[i]n utero gene delivery” experiment
in mice. Federoff ¶ 117. “The embryo was visualized” and “[i]njection of
fetuses was performed. . . . Two microliters of HSVsb or the control
amplicon HSVPrPuc was mixed . . . with HSVT-βgeo, and delivered
intracranially to the mouse embryo.” Id. The HSVT-βgeo vector includes a
β-galactosidase/neomycin resistance fusion transgene. Id. ¶ 97. Federoff
states that after injection was performed, “[t]he uterus was returned to the
abdominal cavity and the abdominal wall was closed” and a “layer of triple
antibiotic gel . . . was applied over the incision site.” Id. ¶ 117.
Thus, as Appellant has pointed out, Federoff describes injection of a
viral vector encoding an antimicrobial resistance gene (HSVT-βgeo) to one
subject (the mouse fetus/embryo) and administration of an antimicrobial
medication (antibiotic gel) to a different subject (the pregnant mouse).
Federoff does not describe transducing the cells of a patient with a viral
vector encoding an antimicrobial resistance gene and administering an
antimicrobial medication to the same patient, and therefore fails to make up
for the acknowledged deficiency in Voigtlander.
The Examiner interprets Federoff as disclosing that “vector was
infused into the mother [mouse],” and cites its statement that “Herpes virus
amplicon particles carrying other transgenes can be microinjected or
otherwise application to other tissues, such as muscle.” Ans. 24. The quoted
Appeal 2021-003603
Application 15/096,214

6
statement, however, immediately follows Federoff’s description of
intracranial injection of embryos, and precedes the description of closing up
the incision in the mother mouse’s abdomen. Federoff ¶ 117. In our view,
this passage is most reasonably interpreted as suggesting that Federoff’s
vectors can be microinjected into other tissues, such as muscle, of the
embryo, not of the mother.
In summary, the Examiner has not shown that Voigtlander and
Federoff would have made obvious a method meeting all of the limitations
of Appellant’s claim 1. We therefore reverse the rejection of claim 1, and
dependent claims 3–6, 9–11, 14, 21, 24, and 26, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Enablement
Claims 1, 3–6, 9–11, 14, 21, 24, 26, and 31 stand rejected on the basis
that
the specification, while being enabling for killing of MRSA
Staphylococcus Aureus in a small animal patient comprising the
MRSA wherein the method comprises administering Ad5 to the
small animal wherein the Ad5 vector is replication defective
and encodes bsr under control of CMV [promoter] and
thereafter blasticidin is administered wherein following the
administration of the Ad5 and the blasticidin the MRSA
Staphylococcus Aureus is killed, does not reasonably provide
enablement for any other embodiment.
Ans. 3.5

5 The Examiner notes the elected species in the § 112(a) rejection. See, e.g.,
Ans. 4. However, the Examiner’s enablement analysis appears to address the
full scope of claim 1; i.e., the claimed genus rather than just the elected
species. See, e.g., Ans. 11 (“one must practice undue experimentation to
determine which patient, which microbe, which antimicrobial gene, which
delivery vector and which antimicrobial medication can mediate the
Appeal 2021-003603
Application 15/096,214

7
The Examiner finds that the scope of the claims is broad, because they
encompass “a method of killing any pathogenic microbe in any patient using
any replication defective viral vector not able to transfect the pathogenic
microbe wherein the viral genome is engineered to comprise any microbial
resistance gene and is treated with any microbial medication wherein the
order of addition is any.” Id. at 4. The Examiner also finds that “[t]here is no
connection between the microbe, the resistance gene and the antimicrobial
medication. These 3 components must be related to one another to be of any
relevance. The microbe must be able to be treated by the antimicrobial
medication. However, as recited, there is no correlation.” Id. at 8.
The Examiner finds that the Specification provides eight prophetic
examples but “[n]one of the methods were performed in vitro or in vivo.” Id.
(emphasis omitted). The Examiner also finds that “the art is clear that
blasticidin is toxic” and is not used clinically for that reason. Id. at 6. The
Examiner also cites Varnavski,6 Orkin,7 and Fumoto8 as evidence that using
viral vectors to introduce genes into a subject is difficult. Id. at 7.
The Examiner finds that “the order of administration is critical. One
would kill the patient should the antimicrobial agent be administered prior to

outcome of killing a microbe that is present in a patient.”). Our review of the
rejection for nonenablement is, therefore, not limited to the elected species.
6 Varnavski et al., “Evaluation of toxicity from high-dose systemic
administration of recombinant adenovirus vector in vector naïve and pre-
immunized mice,” Gene Therapy 12:427–436 (2005).
7 Orkin et al., “Report and Recommendations of the Panel to Assess the NIH
Investment in Research on Gene Therapy,” U.S. National Institutes of
Health, pp. 1–50 (Dec. 7, 1995).
8 Fumoto et al., “Targeted Gene Delivery: Importance of Administration
Routes,” InTech, Chap. 1, pp. 3–31 (2013).
Appeal 2021-003603
Application 15/096,214

8
administration of the gene.” Id. at 10. “If the patient is dead, one cannot
complete the method as the method requires that the patient’s eukaryotic
cells be transduced.” Id.
The Examiner concludes that “one must practice undue
experimentation to determine which patient, which microbe, which
antimicrobial gene, which delivery vector and which antimicrobial
medication can mediate the outcome of killing a microbe that is present in a
patient.” Id. at 11. “Combining the large breadth of claimed subject matter
with the lack of working examples and high unpredictability of the art of
gene delivery, undue experimentation would have been necessary.” Id. at 13.
Appellant argues that “claim 1 does not require that a specific quantity
of pathogenic microbes be killed; it does not require the method be
commercially viable or successful in FDA clinical trials; and it does not
require that the method be therapeutically safe; it requires only that some of
the pathogenic microbes in the patient are killed.” Appeal Br. 9–10.
Appellant also argues that
the claim . . . focuses on the performance of a sequence of
straightforward procedural steps that can be easily followed
with existing and known drugs and genes, especially in this
case where the applicable drugs and genes are expressly listed
in the specification along with a disclosed selection rationale,
and with the specification providing eight exemplary linked
combinations that are described in detail.
Id. at 14–15.
Appellant argues that “the information disclosed in the patent
specification (coupled with information known in the art) does provide
sufficient connection between the microbe, microbial resistance gene, and
microbial medication” and that “in view of the teachings of the specification
Appeal 2021-003603
Application 15/096,214

9
and information already known in the art, those of ordinary skill would
readily recognize which subset of alternative combinations would accord
with the claimed method, and which would not.” Id. at 15. In support of this
position, Appellant argues that, given “the current state of the art, it is
common knowledge which antimicrobial resistance genes are active against
which antimicrobial medications” and “the state of the art already includes
many well-known and routine experiments to determine the efficacy of a
particular antimicrobial agent against a particular pathogen.” Id. at 20.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s analysis does not take into
account the level of skill in the relevant art, which “is high in the biological
arts and sciences.” Id. at 20–21. Appellant argues that “[a]ny
experimentation required to perform the claimed method steps would be
typical and routine for an ordinary molecular biologist, cellular biologist, . . .
who has read the presently pending patent application.” Id. at 21.
Appellant argues that the Orkin reference cited by the Examiner was
published in 1995, and does not indicate the “state of the gene therapy art in
. . . 2016, two decades later when the presently pending patent application
was filed.” Id. Appellant cites a more recent reference disclosing that, “[b]y
April 2013, there had been over 400 gene therapy trials conducted with
human adenoviral vectors alone.” Id.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not provided
sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case of nonenablement. See In re
Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561–62 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“When rejecting a claim
under the enablement requirement of section 112, the PTO bears an initial
burden of setting forth a reasonable explanation as to why it believes that the
Appeal 2021-003603
Application 15/096,214

10
scope of protection provided by that claim is not adequately enabled by the
description of the invention provided in the specification of the
application.”).
The Examiner’s rejection focuses on two aspects of claim 1. First, the
scope of the claim with regard to the pathogenic microbe, the antimicrobial
resistance gene, and the antimicrobial medication; combined with the lack of
any recited “connection between the microbe, the resistance gene and the
antimicrobial medication.” See, e.g., Ans. 8. Second, the Examiner finds that
the “order of administration is critical” because “[o]ne would kill the patient
should the antimicrobial agent be administered prior to administration of the
gene.” Id. at 10.
We will start with the lack of a recited relationship between the
microbe, resistance gene, and medication in claim 1. The Examiner is
correct that the claim does not expressly state that the resistance gene
provides resistance against the medication administered in claim 1’s second
step, or that the medication administered is effective to kill the microbe
recited in claim 1’s preamble.
However, we agree with Appellant that those of skill in the art would
be able to practice the claimed method without undue experimentation.
Appellant asserts, and the Examiner does not dispute,9 that the level of skill
in the medical and biological arts is quite high. Cf. Monsanto Co. v. Scruggs,
459 F.3d 1328, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[B]ecause of the level of skill in the

9 Neither the Examiner’s explanation of the rejection nor the response to
Appellant’s arguments appears to address the level of skill in the art, which
is one of the factors set out in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir.
1988).
Appeal 2021-003603
Application 15/096,214

11
art and the publicly available information about CaMV [cauliflower mosaic
virus], no specific gene sequence needed to be claimed for someone of
ordinary skill in the art to understand how to make and use the invention.”).
In addition, “a claim must be read in view of the specification of
which it is a part.” Renishaw plc v. Marposs Societa per Azioni, 158 F.3d
1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Here, the Specification states that an objective
of the claimed method is to “protect[] eukaryotic cells while killing microbes
in vivo.” Spec. ¶ 31.
The Specification provides extensive lists of antibiotic agents,
antifungal agents, and antiparasitic agents that are suitable for use in the
disclosed method. Spec. ¶¶ 9–12. The Specification also provides guidance
regarding suitable antimicrobial resistance genes. Id. ¶¶ 15–19. In addition,
the Specification describes exemplary combinations of vectors, promoters,
resistance genes, and antimicrobial agents for targeting different pathogens.
Id. ¶¶ 39–88. While the examples are prophetic, they nonetheless provide
guidance to the skilled artisan regarding suitable combinations of the
elements required by the claimed method.
The Specification describes the treatment method defined by claim 1:
A patient is administered a recombinant viral vector, which
contains in its genome one or more antimicrobial resistance
genes. . . . [T]he viral vector preferably transfects only the
patient’s eukaryotic cells, so that pathogenic microbes will not
be transduced with the antimicrobial resistance gene. . . . In this
way, some eukaryotic cells within all tissues and cell types may
be transduced with the antimicrobial resistance gene. . . . [T]he
patient is also administered an antimicrobial medication, which
otherwise may be toxic to the patient or have undesirable side

Appeal 2021-003603
Application 15/096,214

12
effects on the patient (if the viral vector had not been
administered).
Id. ¶¶ 32–35 (reference numerals omitted); see also Fig. 1.
Reading claim 1 in light of the Specification’s description of the
claimed method, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
achieving the goal of the claimed method—“protecting eukaryotic cells
while killing microbes in vivo,” Spec. ¶ 31—would require administering a
viral vector that encodes an antimicrobial resistance gene that is effective
against the antimicrobial agent being used, and would also require
administering an antimicrobial agent that is effective to kill the target
pathogen. Given the extensive guidance in the Specification and the level of
skill in the art, the Examiner has not carried the burden of showing that
choosing an appropriate combination of antimicrobial agent and resistance
gene for a given pathogen would have required undue experimentation.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s position (Ans. 9) that taking into
account the Specification’s description of the reason for the claimed
method—to kill pathogens while reducing unintended effects on the host’s
cells—amounts to reading limitations from the Specification into the claims.
Rather, it requires reading the claim language from the viewpoint of a skilled
artisan familiar with the Specification’s description of the invention. It is
proper to construe claims in light of the description of the invention in the
applicant’s specification:
Ultimately, the interpretation to be given a [claim] term can
only be determined and confirmed with a full understanding of
what the inventors actually invented and intended to envelop
with the claim. The construction that stays true to the claim
language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description
of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.
Appeal 2021-003603
Application 15/096,214

13
Renishaw plc v. Marposs Societa per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir.
1998).
The Examiner also finds that the “order of administration is critical”
because “[o]ne would kill the patient should the antimicrobial agent be
administered prior to administration of the gene.” Id. at 10. “If the patient is
dead, one cannot complete the method as the method requires that the
patient’s eukaryotic cells be transduced.” Id. More specifically, “[i]f
blasticidin is administered prior to the resistance gene then the cells are
killed and the cells cannot be transduced.” Id. at 17.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s position that the lack of a
specified order for the steps of the claimed method merits a rejection for lack
of enablement. The Examiner cites Davison10 and Misato11 as evidence that
blasticidin is toxic. Ans. 6. Davison indeed states that “blasticidin S, due to
its eukaryotic toxicity, is not a clinically used antibiotic.” Davison 2. And
Misato states that “[t]he toxicity of blasticidin S is rather high with a peroral
LD50 in rats of 39.5 mg per kg body weight.” Misato 1.
However, we do not agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the
evidence shows that “[o]ne would kill the patient should the antimicrobial
agent be administered prior to administration of the gene.” Ans. 10. First,
even though the prior art characterizes blasticidin S as “toxic,” a compound
does not have to be lethal in order to be considered toxic, and the

10 Davison et al., “A New Natural Product Analog of Blasticidin S Reveals
Cellular Uptake Facilitated by the NorA Multidrug Transporter,”
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 61:e02635-16, pp. 1–17.
11 Misato, “Blasticidin S,” in Antibiotics, D. Gottlieb et al. (eds.), Springer-
Verlag, pp. 434–435 (1967).
Appeal 2021-003603
Application 15/096,214

14
Examiner’s own evidence demonstrates that not every dose of a compound
of blasticidin S is toxic. As noted above, Misato states that the LD50 for
blasticidin S in rats is 39.5 mg/kg body weight. This means that that dose
was lethal in half the rats to which it was administered, and lower doses
would be expected to be correspondingly less lethal. The figure reproduced
on page 17 of the Examiner’s Answer likewise shows that concentrations of
blasticidin S below 1 μg/ml allowed some colony formation by HeLa cells in
vitro, and a concentration of 0.1 μg/ml had no effect on colony formation.
In addition, even though blasticidin S is part of the species elected for
initial search and examination purposes, claim 1 is not limited to blasticidin
S as the antimicrobial agent. The Specification states that, depending on the
antimicrobial agent used, the viral vector encoding a resistance gene can be
administered before, at the same time as, or even after administration of the
antimicrobial agent. See Spec. pars 42, 46, 61, 69, 76, 81, 86. We conclude
that the Examiner’s finding that administering an antimicrobial agent before
administering a viral vector encoding a resistance gene “would kill the
patient” (Ans. 10) is not supported by the evidence of record.
Finally, the Examiner also finds that “[t]he art has established the lack
of predictability of any viral vector to deliver genes by any method in
humans,” weighing against enablement. Ans. 19. The Examiner cites Orkin
as supporting evidence. Id. at 12, 20. However, as Appellant has pointed out
(Appeal Br. 21), Orkin was published in 1995, while the effective filing date
of the instant invention is 2016. Thus, Orkin does not provide evidence of
the state of the art as of the instant invention. The Examiner also cites
Appeal 2021-003603
Application 15/096,214

15
Fumoto: “As set forth by Fumoto et al, virus and targets are highly limited in
efficacy of the mode of administration.” Ans. 12 (citing Fumoto at 7).
We have reviewed the cited passage but do not agree with the
Examiner’s conclusion that it supports nonenablement. Fumoto discusses
“interaction[s] with blood components that can affect transfection using viral
and non-viral vectors.” Fumoto 7. Fumoto suggests several helpful
approaches: “increasing the lipoplex particle size,” “coating of cationic
carriers with anionic polymers,” and including “neutral lipids, so-called
‘helper lipids.’” Id. The cited passage does not support the Examiner’s
position that transducing a patient’s cells with a viral vector would have
required undue experimentation.
In contrast, Appellant cites Wold12 as disclosing that “by April 2013,
there had been over 400 gene therapy trials conducted with human
adenoviral vectors alone.” Appeal Br. 21. Wold indeed states that adenovirus
vectors “are used for gene therapy, as vaccines, and for cancer therapy.”
Wold 1, abstract. Wold also states that “[m]any clinical trials indicate that
replication-defective . . . adenovirus vectors are safe and have therapeutic
activity.” Id. And, as Appellant pointed out, Wold states that “[m]ore than
400 gene therapy trials have been or are being conducted with human Ad
vectors.” Id. at 3. We conclude that the Examiner’s position that “[t]he art
has established the lack of predictability of any viral vector to deliver genes

12 Wold et al., “Adenovirus Vectors for Gene Therapy, Vaccination and
Cancer Gene Therapy,” Curr. Gene Ther. 13(6):421–433 (2013). The record
copy of Wold is an “Author manuscript,” with pages numbered 1–24.
Appeal 2021-003603
Application 15/096,214

16
by any method in humans” (Ans. 19) is not supported by a preponderance of
the evidence of record.
In summary, the Examiner has not carried the burden of showing that
the claims on appeal are not adequately enabled by the description of the
claimed method in the Specification. See In re Wright, 999 F.2d at 1561–62.
We therefore reverse the rejection of claims 1, 3–6, 9–11, 14, 21, 24, 26, and
31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–6, 9–
11, 14, 21,
24, 26
103 Voigtlander, Federoff 1, 3–6, 9–
11, 14, 21,
24, 26
1, 3–6, 9–
11, 14, 21,
24, 26, 31
112(a) Enablement 1, 3–6, 9–
11, 14, 21,
24, 26, 31
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–6, 9–
11, 14, 21,
24, 26, 31

REVERSED