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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 ERNEST BEUTLER, RICHARD BRUCE,
SCOTT A. ELROD, JOHN STUART FITCH, HUANGPIN BEN HSIEH
ERIC PEETERS and RICHARD A. LERNER
__________
Appeal No. 2006-0227
Application No. 10/121,264
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before ADAMS, GRIMES, and GREEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims to a device comprising genomic DNA. The examiner
has rejected the claims as anticipated by or obvious in view of the prior art. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134. Because we agree with the examiner that the claims
are broad enough to read on devices in the prior art, we affirm.
Discussion
1. Claim construction
Claims 23-28, 31-34, and 40 are on appeal. Claims 14-22 and 35-39 are also
pending but have been withdrawn from consideration by the examiner.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007