Appeal No. 95-1390
Application 07/752,639
set forth in MPEP § 706.02(j). Adherence to this model will result in a statement of a
rejection to which appellants can make a meaningful response and, if needed, any
subsequent appeal can be decided in a straightforward manner.
As a second separate matter, the present invention involves a number of peptides
of which only four have been examined on the merits. As a result of our decision today, it
appears that the examiner will have to examine the claims on appeal throughout their
scope. In so doing, the examiner should ensure that the appropriate electronic data bases
which allow for a search of peptide sequences are properly accessed.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
Bruce H. Stoner, Jr. Chief )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Sherman D. Winters ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
William F. Smith )
Administrative Patent Judge )
WFS/cam
Joseph C. Sullivan
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007