Ex parte VASANTHAKUMAR et al. - Page 1


                                          THIS OPINION IS NOT BINDING PRECEDENT OF THE BOARD                                                            

                                                                                                                Paper No. 24                            
                                          UNITED STATES BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                                         
                                                            AND INTERFERENCES                                                                           
                                                                 ____________                                                                           
                                                 Ex parte GEETHA VASANTHAKUMAR                                                                          
                                                        and JOHN A. MONTGOMERY                                                                          
                                                                 ____________                                                                           
                                                          Appeal No. 1994-1573                                                                          
                                                    Application No. 07/552,744                                                                          
                                                                 ____________                                                                           
                                                                    ON BRIEF                                                                            
                                                                 ____________                                                                           
                 Before McKELVEY, Senior Administrative Patent Judge, and                                                                               
                 SCHAFER and TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                                                     
                 TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                                                  
                                                           DECISION ON APPEAL                                                                           
                          Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final                                                                     
                 rejection of claims 1-7  (Paper No. 13 (Notice of Appeal)).1                                                                                            
                 We affirm in part.                                                                                                                     
                                                                   BACKGROUND                                                                           
                          Appellants filed the subject application for patent on                                                                        
                 16 July 1990 (Paper No. 1).                                                                                                            
                          The claimed subject matter relates to an enzyme present                                                                       
                 in Plasmodium falciparum parasites.  These parasites cause                                                                             
                 malaria in mammalian hosts.  P. falciparum parasites are                                                                               

                          1Claim 8 was withdrawn from consideration by the examiner                                                                     
                 when Appellants elected claims 1-7 in response to the                                                                                  
                 examiner's restriction requirement  (Paper No. 6 (Rej.) at 2).                                                                         
                 See 37 CFR § 1.142.  Claims 1-7 are reproduced in an Appendix                                                                          
                 to this decision.                                                                                                                      





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007