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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 29
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte KATY DRIEU
___________
Appeal No. 2002-2228
Application No. 09/555,906
__________
ON BRIEF1
__________
Before WINTERS, WILLIAM F. SMITH and SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 2-8 and 10-13, the only claims remaining in the application.
Claim 11 is representative:
11. A method of alleviating withdrawal symptoms of substance dependency or
addiction in a human being comprising administering to said human being in need
thereof a Ginkgo biloba extract in an amount sufficient to alleviate said withdrawal
symptoms.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
1 We note appellant’s “Request for Resetting of Oral Hearing,” dated June 25,
2003. Appellant previously requested, and was granted, a rescheduled date (June 24,
2003) for oral hearing. Appellant having been advised that no further rescheduling
should be expected, and the date agreed on for the rescheduled hearing having
passed, we decline to grant any further requests for rescheduling.
In any case, the Board has determined that a hearing is not necessary. See 37
CFR 1.194(c) (July 1, 2002). There is no disadvantage to appellant thereby, inasmuch
as “[a]n appeal decided without an oral hearing [receives] the same consideration by the
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences as appeals decided after oral hearing.” 37
CFR 1.194(a) (July 1, 2002).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007