Appeal No. 2001-0690
Application No. 08/309,315
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered appellants’
specification and claims, in addition to the respective positions articulated by the
appellants and the examiner. We make reference to the examiner’s Answer4 for
the examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejections. We further reference
appellants’ Brief5 for the appellants’ arguments in favor of patentability.
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Margolis in view of Akinaga
The examiner refers (Answer, page 4) our attention to the statement of
the rejection set forth in the Final Rejection6.
We initially note that in contrast to the examiner’s position (Final
Rejection, page 3) appellants do not concede (See Brief, pages 10-11) that the
use of a tyrosine kinase inhibitor is not critical since the protein kinase inhibitor
may be a serine/threonine kinase inhibitor or a tyrosine protein kinase inhibitor.
Instead, appellants maintain (Brief, bridging sentence, pages 10-11) “there is no
4 Paper No. 25, mailed December 23, 1997.
5 Paper No. 24, received September 15, 1997.
6 Paper No. 18, mailed December 18, 1996.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007