Ex Parte COCKS et al - Page 1



                            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                                    for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 21                 
                         UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                        
                                                     __________                                                           

                               BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                         
                                              AND INTERFERENCES                                                           
                                                      __________                                                          
                            Ex parte BENJAMIN GRAEME COCKS, JANICE AU-YOUNG                                               
                                            and JEFFREY J. SEILHAMER                                                      
                                                     ___________                                                          
                                                 Appeal No. 2002-0870                                                     
                                              Application No. 09/208,2061                                                 
                                                      __________                                                          
                                                       ON BRIEF                                                           
                                                      __________                                                          
              Before WILLIAM F. SMITH, SCHEINER and GRIMES, 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 6 and 23.2                                                                                           
                     Claim 6 is representative:                                                                           
                     6. A purified polypeptide comprising an amino acid sequence selected from the                        
              group consisting of                                                                                         
                     a) an amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:2,                                                            
                     b) a naturally-occurring amino acid sequence found in humans and having at                           
              least 90% sequence identity to the sequence of SEQ ID NO:2, and,                                            
                     c) an antigenically-active fragment of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:2.                       
                                                     DISCUSSION                                                           


                     1 Application for patent filed December 9, 1998.  According to appellants, this                      
              application is a divisional of application serial no. 08/602,208, filed February 15, 1996,                  
              now U.S. Patent 5,866,332.                                                                                  
                     2 Claims 11, 13, 19, 21 and 22 are also pending; claims 11, 13 and 19 have been                      
              withdrawn from consideration, while claims 21 and 22 stand objected to.                                     


Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007