THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte THOMAS J. COMMONS
DONALD P. STRIKE and CHRISTA M. LACLAIR
______________
Appeal No. 95-4674
Application 08/095,1401
_______________
ON BRIEF HEARD:
_______________
Before JOHN D. SMITH, PAK and WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal and Opinion
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. ' 134 from the decision of the examiner finally rejecting
claims 5 through 8, 11, 13, 15 through 20 and 22. Also of record: claim 9 stands objected to; claim 10
stands withdrawn from consideration; and claims 21 and 23 through 33 stand allowed.
The appealed claims stand rejected as constituting an improper Markush group and as being
non-enabled by the disclosure under 35 U.S.C. ' 112, first paragraph, enablement (answer, pages 3-
4). We have carefully considered the record before us, and based thereon, find that we cannot sustain
either of these grounds of rejection. We will consider these grounds of rejection together because the
examiner has advanced essentially the same rationale in each ground.
A rejection of a claim to chemical compounds defined in Markush format for encompassing
1 Application for patent filed July 21, 1993.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007