The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte JONATHAN H. DINSMORE and JUDSON RATLIFF
__________
Appeal No. 1999-1256
Application 08/333,076
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before WILLIAM F. SMITH, ADAMS, and GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judges.
GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.
REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellants request rehearing and reconsideration of the board’s decision entered
July 30, 2001, wherein the examiner’s rejection of claims 31 and 32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, was affirmed.
In effect, Appellants assert that the board applied the wrong legal standard in
reviewing the rejection for nonenablement. See page 2, first full paragraph (“Applicants,
however, in order to provide an enabling disclosure, need not demonstrate how
embryonic stem cells can be made to differentiate into every desirable cell type.”); id.,
last paragraph (“[O]ne need not show the culturing of embryonic stem cells in the
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007