Ex parte KAMBOJ et al.; Ex parte FOLDES et al. - Page 5

                       Appeal No.  1999-2200                                                                                                                     
                       Application No.  08/896,063                                                                                                               
                       However, we find that the examiners handling this series of applications differ, inter                                                    
                       alia, in their interpretation of the Puckett reference.                                                                                   
                                 While the issues, references cited and reasoning for the rejections are quite                                                   
                       similar in each of the appeals, it also appears that events have overtaken a number                                                       
                       of appeals.  As illustrated in Appendix B a number United States Patents have                                                             
                       issued with claims that appear to conflict with the continued rejection of some of the                                                    
                       claims on appeal, and/or with the reasoning upon which the examiners use to reject                                                        
                       the claims on appeal.                                                                                                                     
                                 Therefore, in the interest of administrative economy, and to avoid further                                                      
                       delay in the prosecution of these applications, we have consolidated these appeals                                                        
                       into one decision.                                                                                                                        

                       DECISION ON APPEAL                                                                                                                        
                                 This is a decision on the appeals listed in Appendix A under 35 U.S.C.                                                         
                       134 from the examiners’ rejections in each of the applications.  This opinion is                                                          
                       divided into three sections based on the receptor class (kainate, AMPA, or NMDA)                                                          
                       to which the appeal relates.  Two sections (kainate and AMPA) are further divided                                                         
                       to address appeals relating to the receptor subclasses (e.g. EAA4, EAA5, GLUR1,                                                           
                       GLUR2, etc.).  Within each section, the corresponding appeals will be discussed in                                                        
                       order of appeal number, and claims that illustrate the subject matter of each appeal                                                      
                       will be presented, along with the grounds of rejection made therein.                                                                      
                                 In reaching our decision in these appeals, we have given careful                                                                
                       consideration to the appellants’ specification and claims, and to the respective                                                          
                       positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.  We will make reference to                                                      
                       5 Appeal Nos. 2000-1779 and 2000-1780.                                                                                                    


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007