onecle

Ex Parte Kashima et al - Page 1





                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                            
                                               __________                                                  
                           BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                              
                                        AND INTERFERENCES                                                  
                                               __________                                                  
                        Ex parte HISASHI KASHIMA, HARUNOBU KUDO, and                                       
                                           RYOH SUGIHARA                                                   
                                               __________                                                  
                                            Appeal 2007-1627                                               
                                         Application 09/870,009                                            
                                         Technology Center 1600                                            
                                               __________                                                  
                                        Decided: October 29, 2007                                          
                                               __________                                                  
               Before ERIC B. GRIMES,  LORA M. GREEN,  and NANCY J. LINCK,                                 
               Administrative Patent Judges.                                                               
               GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                        


                                        DECISION ON APPEAL                                                 
                      This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134 involving claims to DNA                      
               containing “watermark” sequences.  The Examiner has rejected the claims as                  
               anticipated, indefinite, containing new matter, and encompassing naturally                  
               occurring materials.  We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.  6(b).  We                      
               reverse the anticipation and new matter rejections, but affirm the rejections               
               for indefiniteness and for encompassing naturally occurring materials.                      





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013