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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 JURGEN ROMISCH, ANNETTE FEUSSNER,
CHRISTIAN KANNEMEIER and HANS-ARNOLD STOHR
__________
Appeal No. 2006-0565
Application No. 10/033,777
__________
HEARD: APRIL 27, 2006
__________
Before SCHEINER, GRIMES, and GREEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 3 and 5-21.1 Claims 1 and 3 are representative of the
subject matter on appeal, and read as follows:
1 Appellants assert that the appeal involves claims 1-21, acknowledging that claims 22-24 were
withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention. See Reply Brief, page
2. As noted by the examiner, however, appellants elected the species drawn to tranexamic acid
and a nonionic detergent. See Examiner’s Answer, page 3. As claims 2 and 4 are drawn
exclusively to the use of an ionic detergent, those claims also stand withdrawn from
consideration. Thus, this opinion applies to the claims as they read on the use of tranexamic acid
and a nonionic detergent.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007