Ex parte GAULER et al. - Page 2


                 Appeal No.  1997-2744                                                                                 
                 Application No.  08/243,520                                                                           
                 Isgaard et al. (Isgaard), “Effects of local administration of GH and IGF-1 on                         
                 longitudinal bone growth in rats,” Am. J. Physiol., Vol. 250, pp. E367-E372 (1986)                    
                 Mueller et al. (Mueller), “Insulin-like growth factor-I increases trabecular bone mass                
                 in the ovariectomized rat,” J. Bone Mineral Research, Vol. 6, Supp. 1,    pp. S221,                   
                 Abstract 549 (1991)                                                                                   
                                             GROUND OF REJECTION                                                       
                        Claim 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable                          
                 over Isgaard in view of Mueller.                                                                      
                        We reverse.                                                                                    
                                                    DISCUSSION                                                         
                        In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration                   
                 to the appellants’ specification and claims, and to the respective positions                          
                 articulated by the appellants and the examiner.  We make reference to the                             
                 examiner’s Answer1, and the examiner’s Supplemental Answer2 for the examiner’s                        
                 reasoning in support of the rejections.  We further reference appellants’ Brief3, and                 
                 appellants’ Reply Brief4 for the appellants’ arguments in favor of patentability.                     












                                                                                                                       
                 1 Paper No. 39, mailed September 12, 1996.                                                            
                 2 Paper No. 42, mailed December 27, 1996.                                                             
                 3 Paper No. 37, received July 5, 1996.                                                                
                 4 Paper No. 40, received November 19, 1996.                                                           

                                                          2                                                            



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007