Ex Parte Seul - Page 1



                             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                                today is not binding precedent of the Board.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 MICHAEL SEUL                                         
                                           __________                                              
                                         Appeal 2007-1624                                          
                                      Application 10/424,662                                       
                                     Technology Center 1600                                        
                                           __________                                              
                                    Decided: September 13, 2007                                    
                                           __________                                              
              Before ERIC GRIMES, NANCY J. LINCK, and RICHARD M.                                   
              LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judges.                                              
              LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.                                               
                                     DECISION ON APPEAL                                            
                    This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of claims 76-86,         
              89, 90, and 105-108.  We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.  6(b).  We               
              reverse the written description and prior art rejections, but affirm the             
              rejection under  112, second paragraph.  We also reject claims 76-81, 84-           
              86, 88, 89, 90, 105, 106, 107, and 108 under a new ground of rejection.              

                                     STATEMENT OF CASE                                             
                    The appealed claims are directed to an array of oligonucleotides in            
              which the oligonucleotides are attached to particles (also referred to as            



Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013