Appeal 2007-3373
Application 10/477,363
1 2. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0156933 A1,
2 published 12 August 2004.
3 3. Rejection entered 07 February 2006. The rejection was not a
4 final rejection, but was a second rejection of the claims; an appeal is
5 therefore proper. 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
6 4. Appeal Brief received 11 September 2006.
7 5. The Examiner’s Answer entered 28 November 2006.
8 6. Reply Brief filed 23 January 2007.
9 7. Berg (U.S. Patent 5,998,565).
10 8. Claims 2 and 4-11 on appeal.
11
12 C. Issues
13 The issue is whether Ciba has sustained its burden of showing that the
14 Examiner erred in rejecting the claims on appeal as being unpatentable under
15 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Berg.
16 The issue, in large measure, turns on whether a Berg "modifying"
17 compound is chemically bound to a Berg "dendrimer."
18
19 D. Findings of fact
20 The following findings of fact are believed to be supported by a
21 preponderance of the evidence. To the extent that a finding of fact is a
22 conclusion of law, it may be treated as such. Additional findings as
23 necessary may appear in the Discussion portion of the opinion.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013