Ex Parte Johnson - Page 1





                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                
                                                 __________                                                     
                            BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                  
                                          AND INTERFERENCES                                                     
                                                 __________                                                     
                                     Ex parte MICHAEL W. JOHNSON                                                
                                                 __________                                                     
                                              Appeal 2007-2766                                                  
                                           Application 09/880,615                                               
                                           Technology Center 3700                                               
                                                 __________                                                     
                                          Decided: October 17, 2007                                             
                                                 __________                                                     
                Before DEMETRA J. MILLS, LORA M. GREEN, and                                                     
                RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judges.                                              
                LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                          
                                          DECISION ON APPEAL                                                    
                       This is a decision on appeal from the Examiner’s final rejection of                      
                claims 23, 24, 26-30, 32, 33, and 35-40.  We have jurisdiction under 35                         
                U.S.C. § 6(b).  We affirm.                                                                      
                                        STATEMENT OF THE CASE                                                   
                       The claims are directed to methods of manufacturing a porous stent.                      
                The stent is described as useful to deliver drugs to a desired body location by                 
                loading stent pores with drug (Specification 1: 28-29; 3: 4-20).                                







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

Last modified: September 9, 2013