Appeal No. 2003-1678 Page 9
Application No. 08/722,659
administration, and/or dosage amount required by claim 1 on appeal from those set
forth in Example 8 of Zimmermann. As set forth above, appellants have not done so.
On this record, it is reasonable to conclude that the same patient is being administered
the same active agent by the same mode of administration in the same amount in both
claim 1 on appeal and Example 8 of Zimmermann. Given that identify, the fact that
appellants may have discovered yet another beneficial effect from the method set forth
in Example 8 of Zimmermann does not mean that they are entitled to receive a new
patent on that method.
4. Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f).
Our affirmance of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) constitutes a disposition
of this appeal. Accordingly, we do not consider the merits of the examiner's alternative
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f). The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
)
William F. Smith )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007