Appeal No. 94-2504
Application 07/963,676
Claims 1, 3, and 5-25 are pending in this application.
1. History of prosecution
A. In a first office action mailed December 7, 1992
(Paper
No. 3), the examiner required the following restriction under
35 U.S.C. § 121:
The claims are drawn to compounds that find
themselves classed in various and numerous parts of
class 514.
Accordingly, selection of a specific invention
as defined by a specific compound is required.
The several inventions are clearly independent and
distinct due to separate search, status, consideration
and/or classification. Further, a reference to one
invention under 35 U.S.C. § 103 would not be a reference
to the others.
Applicant is required to elect one of the above,
even though such be traversed, 37 C.F.R. 1.143.
It is not within the Board’s jurisdiction to review the
propriety of restriction requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 121.
In re Watkinson, 900 F.2d 230, 233, 14 USPQ2d 1407, 1409 (Fed.
Cir. 1990). Nevertheless, we cannot help but notice that
Claims 1-16 which were pending in this application at the time
the restriction requirement was imposed were, as originally
filed, directed to “a method of reducing the damaging effect
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007