Appeal No. 2005-1422 Page 18
Application No. 09/997,522
art to question the objective truth of the statement of utility or its scope.”). In this
case, that means that the burden is on the examiner to show that those skilled in
the art would doubt the objective truth of the specification’s statement that the
claimed nucleic acids encode a thrombin receptor homolog.
On this record, appellants point out (Brief, page 13),
[t]he instant application is a continuation of, and claims priority to,
Coleman (U.S. Ser. No. 09/643,383….), which is a divisional of,
and claims priority to Coleman et al. (U.S. Ser. No. 09/217,101,
[now United States Patent No. 6,143,870 (‘870)[ ] 10 ] …), which is a
divisional of, and claims priority to, Coleman et al. (U.S. Ser. No.
08/911,320, [now United States Patent No. 5,869,633 (‘633)] …),
which is a divisional of, and claims priority to, Coleman et al. (U.S.
Ser. No. 08/467,125, [now United States Patent No. 5,686,597
(‘597)]….
As appellants point out (Brief, page 13), but for the correction of typographical
errors and reformatting, the instant specification is essentially identical to the
specifications of Application Nos. 09/217,101, 08/911,320 and 08/467,125 now
respectively, United States Patent Nos. 6,143,870, 5,869,633, and 5,686,597.
For clarity, we reproduce representative claims from each patent:
The ‘870 patent;
1. A purified polypeptide comprising the amino acid sequence of
SEQ ID NO[:] 2.
The ‘633 patent;
1. An isolated and purified polynucleotide which is complementary
to a polyncleotide encoding the polypeptide having the amino
acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2.
The ‘597 patent;
10 We note that the examiner of record in this appeal was also the examiner of record on the ‘870
patent.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007