Appeal 2006-3252
Application 09/536,728
1 A. Statement of the case
2 The application has been before the Board on prior occasions.
3 In initially filing and pursuing an appeal, Franz Esser, Helmut Stähle,
4 Sven Lüttke, Ikonobu Muramatsu, Hisato Kitagawa, and Shujil Uchida
5 (hereafter "Esser") sought review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of rejections of
6 claims 21-24, 26, 30-33, 39-50, 55-65, and 71-81.
7 The real party in interest is Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma KG.
8 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
9 Esser claims the benefit of (1) application 09/277,944, filed
10 11 January 1999 (now U.S. Patent 6,268,398), and (2) PCT/EP96/01568,
11 filed 13 April 1996.
12 The Examiner rejected various groups of claims as being unpatentable
13 (1) under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the prior art and (2) for provisional double
14 patenting over Esser application 09/227,944, which ultimately matured into
15 Esser U.S. Patent 6,268,398.
16 On a prior occasion, a panel of the Board [Judges Ellis (who is no
17 longer at the Board), Scheiner and Adams] took the following action:
18 (1) A rejection of claims 21-24, 26, 47-50 and 73-81 as being
19 unpatentable under § 103(a) over Olson was reversed.
20 (2) A rejection of claims 21-24, 30-33, 39-50, 55-65, and 71-72
21 as being unpatentable under § 103(a) over York was affirmed, but the
22 affirmance was designated as a new rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
23 § 41.50(b).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013