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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 MILAND RAJOPADHYE, D. SCOTT EDWARDS,
THOMAS D. HARRIS, STUART J. HAMINWAY,
SHUANG LIU, and PRAHLAD R. SINGH
__________
Appeal 2007-0856
Application 09/281,474
Technology Center 1600
__________
Decided: May 21, 2007
__________
Before TONI R. SCHEINER, ERIC GRIMES, and LORA M. GREEN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a
compound comprising a targeting moiety and a chelator. The Examiner has
rejected the claims for obviousness and obviousness-type double patenting.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm the obviousness
rejection and reverse the obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013