Interference 102,760
April 12, 1996 (Paper No. 112), p. 9, first full para.).
Not only has Rapoport failed to show that the joint
inventors named in Application 07/695,325 for the subject
matter claimed are improper under 35 U.S.C. § 116 and Claims
1-13 of Application 07/695,325 are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 102(f), but Rapoport also has not shown that the
Board erred in its decision awarding priority of the invention
defined by the count of this interference to senior party
Dement et al. based on Dement’s earlier conception of a method
for treatment of sleep apneas comprising administration of a
therapeutically effective regimen of buspirone to a patient in
need of such treatment (Papers No. 112 and 122). Therefore,
we will not sua sponte reject any of the claims pending in
Dement et al. Application 07/695,325 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)/103(a). In that the Board denied
Rapoport’s Second Motion To Accept Belated Filing Of
Preliminary Motion Under 37 CFR 1.633(a)(Paper No. 63)(Paper
No. 112, pp. 17-18, bridging para.) and dismissed Rapoport’s
Motion For Judgment Under 37 CFR 1.633(a) (Paper No. 64)(Paper
No. 112, p. 18, first full para.), our consideration of the
patentability issues for final hearing is complete.
6. Decisions on Miscellaneous Motions
33
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007