The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
______________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
______________________
Ex parte GERALD M. RUBIN, DUOJIA PAN,
JENNY ROOKE, REZA YAVARI
and TIAN XU
______________________
Appeal No. 2004-11061
Application No. 09/871,3882
_____________________
ON BRIEF
______________________
Before: WILLIAM F. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge,
McKELVEY, Senior Administrative Patent Judge, and
SPIEGEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
SPIEGEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. Introduction
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner's final
1 The application on appeal was received by the Board on 17 March 2004.
2 Application for patent filed 31 May 2001. According to appellants, this application is a divisional
of application 09/709,126, filed 8 November 200, now U.S. Patent 6,319,704, which is a divisional of
application 09/285,502, filed 2 April 1999, now U.S. Patent 6,190,876, which is a divisional of application
08/937,931 filed 27 August 1997, now U.S. Patent 5,935,792, which claims the benefit of provisional
applications 60/053,476, filed 23 July 1997, and 60/019,390, filed 29 August 1996. Further according to
appellants, the real parties-in-interest are The Regents of the University of California and Exelixis, Inc., the
assignee and licensee, respectively, of this application. However, both the first page of the involved
specification and the USPTO assignment records indicate that Yale University is also an assignee.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007