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and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte KARL TRYGGVASON, OLAVI LUKKARINEN,
PIRKKO HEIKKILA and TEIJA PARPALA
____________
Appeal No. 2001-2413
Application No. 09/167,894
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before FRANKFORT, McQUADE and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
McQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Karl Tryggvason et al. appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 and 7, the only claims pending in the application.
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to “apparatus for delivery of
pharmaceuticals to target tissues” (specification, page 1).
Claims 1 and 7 read as follows:1
1 In the event of further prosecution, the appellants should
consider harmonizing the recitations in claims 1 and 7 of “a
means for allowing the conduction of perfusate” and “a means to
allow the conduction of perfusate” since it is apparent, when
read in light of the underlying disclosure, that these
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007