The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte TORSTEN SELZER
__________
Appeal 2006-0760
Application 10/312,417
Technology Center 1600
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before MILLS, GREEN, and LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims to a dermal therapeutic system for
delivery of a COX-2 inhibitor. The Examiner has rejected the claims as
anticipated and obvious over prior art. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part.
DISCUSSION
Claims 13-27, which are all the pending claims, are on appeal (Br. 3).
The claims are subject to two prior art rejections (Id. at 4). In the first
rejection, claims 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102. In the second
rejection, claims 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We focus on
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013