The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte DIPAK K. BANERJEE and JUAN A. MARTINEZ
__________
Appeal 2007-1614
Application 09/779,447
Technology Center 1600
__________
Decided: August 14, 2007
__________
Before DONALD E. ADAMS, 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 inhibiting
angiogenesis by administering tunicamycin. The Examiner has rejected the
claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.
BACKGROUND
“Angiogenesis involves the development of new and small blood
vessels by budding and sprouting from larger, extant vessels . . .”
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013