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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 EDMUND P. HARRIGAN, JOTHAM W. COE,
BRIAN T.O’NEILL, STEVEN B. SANDS, and
ERIC JACOB WATSKY
__________
Appeal No. 2006-0429
Application No. 10/348,399
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before ADAMS, MILLS, and GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judges.
GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims to pharmaceutical compositions comprising a
nicotine receptor agonist and either an antidepressant or anxiolytic agent. The
examiner has rejected the claims as obvious in view of the prior art. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134. Because we conclude that the references cited by
the examiner support a prima facie case of obviousness, but for reasons different from
those advanced by the examiner, we vacate the rejection on appeal and enter two new
grounds of rejection.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007