Appeal 2007-1082
Application 10/327,383
1 azithromycin. For the reasons given, as applied to the facts of this case we
2 credit the more relevant teachings of Curatolo over the less relevant
3 “teachings” of Rouhi.
4
5 G. Conclusions of law
6 Appellants have not sustained their burden on appeal of showing that
7 the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims on appeal as being unpatentable
8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tenengauzer.
9 Appellants have not sustained their burden on appeal of showing that
10 the Examiner erred in rejecting claims on appeal as being unpatentable under
11 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Singer and Curatolo.
12 On the record before us, appellants are not entitled to a patent
13 containing claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11, 13-23, 25-26 or 28.
14
15 H. Decision
16 ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting
17 claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11, 13-23, 25-26 and 28 over Tenengauzer is affirmed.
18 FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner
19 rejecting claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11, 13-23, 25-26 and 28 over Singer and
20 Curatolo is affirmed.
21 FURTHER ORDERED that no time period for taking any
22 subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37
23 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED
21
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013