The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte JEFFREY L. HAVENS, DONALD P. SMITH,
MICHAEL S. BERGREN and MARK A. LYSTER
__________
Appeal No. 2001-0091
Application No. 08/732,254
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before WINTERS, ROBINSON, and GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judges.
GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
An oral hearing in this case was scheduled for November 27, 2001. Upon
reviewing the case, however, we have determined that an oral hearing will not be
necessary and we render the following decision based on the record.
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 and 2. Claims 1 and 2 are directed to specific crystal
forms (form “S” and form “T,” respectively) of 1-[5-Methanesulfonamidoindolyl-2-
carbonyl]-4-[3-(1-methylethylamino)-2-pyridinyl]-piperazine
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007