Ex Parte Lawyer 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                                for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.                   

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                              
                                                __________                                                   
                           BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                
                                        AND INTERFERENCES                                                    
                                                __________                                                   
                        Ex parte CARL HENRY LAWYER, MATTHEW CARL LAWYER                                      
                                      and EDWARD ZADOK LAWYER                                                
                                                __________                                                   
                                         Appeal No.  2006-3260                                               
                                         Application No. 10/384,044                                          
                                                __________                                                   
                                                 ON BRIEF                                                    
                                                __________                                                   
                Before ADAMS, LINCK and LEBOVITZ, 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 1-12, 14, 16-19, 21-29 and 31-36, which are             
                all the claims pending in the application.1                                                  
                      Claims 19 and 33 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and are              
                reproduced below:                                                                            
                   19. A pharmaceutical composition comprising an aqueous suspension of                      
                       Modafinil for nasal administration, wherein said Modafinil has a particle             
                       size of 1 to 10 microns.                                                              
                                                                                                             
                1 Appellants assert that “[c]laims 13, 15 and 30 were withdrawn [from consideration] in      
                Amendment B.  Brief, page 2.  However, upon review of “Amendment B”, received May 20, 2004,  
                we note that claims 13, 15 and 30 were cancelled without prejudice.  The Examiner            
                acknowledged that these claims were cancelled at page 3 of the Office Action, mailed September
                2, 2004.                                                                                     




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

Last modified: September 9, 2013