Appeal 2007-4148
Application 09/148,012
If this application is subject to further prosecution, the Examiner
should consider whether compounds having diametrically opposed
mechanisms – both increasing and decreasing SR-BI expression, or both
increasing and decreasing SR-BI binding to lipoprotein – can all have the
same overall effect of inhibiting uptake, binding or transport of cholesteryl
ester by SR-BI., as required by claim 1.
C. Claim 16
Claim 16 depends on claim 11, which has been cancelled. If this
application is subject to further prosecution, the dependency of claim 16
should be corrected.
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-9, 12, 15, 16, and 20-22 for lack
of adequate written description and the rejection of claims 1-9, 15, 16, and
20-22 for lack of enablement.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
Ssc
PATREA L. PABST
PABST PATENT GROUP LLP
400 COLONY SQUARE, SUITE 1200
1201 PEACHTREE STREET
ATLANTA, GA 30361
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Last modified: September 9, 2013