Appeal No. 2000-1779
Application No. 08/473,204
However, we find that the examiners handling this series of applications differ, inter
alia, in their interpretation of the Puckett reference.
While the issues, references cited and reasoning for the rejections are quite
similar in each of the appeals, it also appears that events have overtaken a number
of appeals. As illustrated in Appendix B a number United States Patents have
issued with claims that appear to conflict with the continued rejection of some of the
claims on appeal, and/or with the reasoning upon which the examiners use to reject
the claims on appeal.
Therefore, in the interest of administrative economy, and to avoid further
delay in the prosecution of these applications, we have consolidated these appeals
into one decision.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeals listed in Appendix A under 35 U.S.C. §
134 from the examiners’ rejections in each of the applications. This opinion is
divided into three sections based on the receptor class (kainate, AMPA, or NMDA)
to which the appeal relates. Two sections (kainate and AMPA) are further divided
to address appeals relating to the receptor subclasses (e.g. EAA4, EAA5, GLUR1,
GLUR2, etc.). Within each section, the corresponding appeals will be discussed in
order of appeal number, and claims that illustrate the subject matter of each appeal
will be presented, along with the grounds of rejection made therein.
In reaching our decision in these appeals, we have given careful
consideration to the appellants’ specification and claims, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. We will make reference to
5 Appeal Nos. 2000-1779 and 2000-1780.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007