)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
Demetra J. Mills ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Eric Grimes )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC
1751 PINNACLE DRIVE
SUITE 500
MCLEAN VA 22102-3833
[1] Appellant waived his request for oral hearing. Paper No. 18, received April 29, 2004. Accordingly, we considered this
appeal on Brief.
[2] The examiner presents no evidence on this record that the other anti-diarrheals DEHSPM, (HO)2DEHSPM, DENSPM,
DPNSPM and HSPM as set forth in col. 17, lines 27-59 of Bergeron, fall within the scope of the formula set forth in
appellant’s claims. In this regard, we note that Table 1 of Bergeron, sets forth the structure of DENSPM, No. 11 and
DEHSPM, No. 20 of Bergeron. In addition, Table 3 of Bergeron sets forth the structure of DEHSPM, and (HO)2DEHSPM.
[3] According to appellant (Brief, page 3), “[t]he appealed claims stand or fall together.” Accordingly, we limit our
discussion to representative independent claim 1. Claims 2-7 stand or fall together with claim 1. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)
(2002).
[4] See also, Specification, page 10, “a suitable dose of agent will lie in the range of about .0001 mg to about 500 mg per
kilogram of mammal body weight being treated.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: November 3, 2007