Ex parte KAMBOJ et al.; Ex parte FOLDES et al. - Page 125


                  Appeal No.  1997-3221                                                                                        
                  Application No.  08/249,241                                                                                  
                  as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the                      
                  time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.                                     
                  Appeal No. 1999-0399:  Reversed                                                                              
                          We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 8-21, and 40 under    35                         
                  U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bettler ‘92 in view of Puckett.                                      

                  AMPA Receptors:                                                                                              
                  Appeal No. 1997-3377:  Reversed                                                                              
                          We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 31, 33, 34, and 37-40 under                            
                  35 U.S.C. § 103 over Puckett in view of Cutting.                                                             
                  Appeal No. 1999-1393:  Reversed                                                                              
                          We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103                             
                  over Heinemann in view of Puckett and Sun.                                                                   
                  Appeal No. 1999-2118:  Reversed                                                                              
                          We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 22, 32, and 34-40 under   35                           
                  U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Heinemann in view of Puckett and Sun.                                
                          We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 31 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. §                            
                  103 as being unpatentable over Heinemann, Puckett, and Sun as applied to claims                              
                  22, 32, and 34-40 above and further in view of Cutting.                                                      




                  Appeal No. 1999-2200:  Affirmed-in-Part, 37 CFR § 1.196(c)                                                   




                                                             125                                                               



Page:  Previous  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007