Ex Parte QUAN et al - Page 1


                           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                                  for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 35                   
                        UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                     
                                                    __________                                                        
                              BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                      
                                            AND INTERFERENCES                                                         
                                                    __________                                                        
                                              Ex parte STELLA QUAN,                                                   
                                     PABLO VALENZUELA and ALAN POLITO                                                 
                                                    __________                                                        
                                               Appeal No. 2003-1679                                                   
                                             Application No. 08/993,010                                               
                                                    __________                                                        
                                                     ON BRIEF                                                         
                                                    __________                                                        
                 Before WINTERS, SCHEINER, and ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judges.                                   
                 ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                  
                                              DECISION ON APPEAL                                                      
                        This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the                               
                 examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, 20-22 and 24.  Claims 25-44                   
                 were withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement.1                         
                        Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced                     
                 below:                                                                                               
                        1. A method of detecting Helicobacter pylori antibodies associated with                       
                           infection in a human subject comprising:                                                   
                               (a) reacting a biological sample from the subject with one or more                     
                                  H. pylori type-common antigens provided in an H. pylori lysate                      
                                  and with one or more purified type-specific H. pylori Type I                        
                                                                                                                      
                 1 We note there is some degree of confusion regarding the status of claim 24.  The examiner’s        
                 statement of the status of the claims lists claim 24 as both involved in this appeal, and as         
                 withdrawn from consideration.  Answer, page 2.  Similarly, appellants’ Brief (page 2), identifies    
                 claim 24 as withdrawn.  However, since the examiner has rejected claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. §          
                 103, we have considered claim 24 in our deliberations.                                               





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007