Ex Parte Zaknoen - Page 1



                                                                                        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                                for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.                  

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                             
                                               __________                                                   

                           BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                               
                                        AND INTERFERENCES                                                   
                                                __________                                                  
                                        Ex parte SARA L. ZAKNOEN                                            
                                                __________                                                  
                                           Appeal No.  2004-1974                                            
                                         Application No. 09/767,424                                         
                                                __________                                                  
                                       REQUEST FOR REHEARING                                                
                                                __________                                                  
            Before WILLIAM F. SMITH, SCHEINER, and MILLS, Administrative Patent Judges.                     
            WILLIAM F. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                  
                                     ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING                                               
            Appellant requests rehearing of our decision of September 22, 2004, in which we                 
            affirmed the examiner’s decision that claims 1-22 were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.             
            § 103(a).  Appellant argues that we overlooked arguments from the Reply Brief                   
            regarding pegylated interferon alpha, non-pegylated interferon alpha, and the varying           
            molecular and pharmacokinetic properties that exist between the two compounds.                  
            Request, page 5.                                                                                
                   We did not overlook the arguments made in the Reply Brief.  See slip opinion,            
            pages 3 and 5.  Failure to specifically address an argument does not mean that that             
            argument was overlooked.                                                                        






Page:  1  2  3  4  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007