The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte Thomas B. Carlson
__________
Appeal No. 2004-23171
Application No. 09/771,938
__________
Heard: February 10, 20052
__________
Before SCHEINER, ADAMS and GREEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
examiner’s final rejection of claims 3, 6, 11, 14-20, 24, 25, and 27-31. The
examiner has indicated that claims 1, 2, 5, 7-10, 12, 13 and 21-23 are allowable.
Answer, page 2. Claims 4 and 26 are cancelled. Brief, page 2.
1 This appeal is substantially similar to Appeal No. 2004-1503, Application No. 09/606,808;
Appeal No. 2004-1506, Application No. 09/771,938; Appeal No. 2004-1968, Application No.
10/00,0311; Appeal No. 2004-2343, Application No. 09/772,520; and Appeal No. 2005-0396,
Application No. 10/077,589, which all share the same assignee, Monsanto Company, the parent
of wholly-owned subsidiary DeKalb Genetics Corporation. Accordingly we have considered
these appeals together.
2 We note that examiner Ashwin Meta presented arguments at the oral hearing.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007