Appeal 2006-3252
Application 09/536,728
1 C. Issues
2 There are several issues before us at this time:
3 A first issue is whether Esser has sustained its burden of showing that
4 the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims 73-75, 77-79 and 81 as being
5 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Stähle, U.S. Patent 4,213,955.
6 A second issue is whether claims 73-81 are unpatentable under
7 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over York.
8 A third issue is whether, notwithstanding the earlier panel decision,
9 claims 26 and 73-81 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Olson.
10
11 D. Findings of fact
12 The following findings of fact are believed to be supported by a
13 preponderance of the evidence. To the extent that a finding of fact is a
14 conclusion of law, it may be treated as such. Additional findings as
15 necessary may appear in the Discussion portion of the opinion.
16 The invention
17 The typewritten specification of the application does not have line
18 numbers on each page.
19 The Patent Application Publication has page numbers and paragraph
20 numbers. We will refer to the Patent Application Publication and the
21 paragraph numbers of the publication with the understanding that we are
22 referring to the specification of the application, as filed.
23 The invention relates to the use of what Esser calls α1L-agonists for
24 treating urinary incontinence, particularly stress incontinence. Publication,
25 ¶ 0001.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013