Ex Parte Bander - 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                              for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 NEIL H. BANDER                                          
                                             ___________                                                
                                         Appeal No. 2006-06321                                          
                                       Application No. 09/929,665                                       
                                               ________                                                 
                                              ON BRIEF2                                                 
                                              __________                                                

            Before SCHEINER, MILLS and GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judges.                            
            SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                      
                                         DECISION ON APPEAL                                             
                  This appeal involves antibodies that bind prostate specific membrane antigen          
            (PSMA).  The examiner has rejected claims requiring a particular subgenus of anti-          
            PSMA antibodies as lacking adequate written descriptive support.  We have jurisdiction      
            under 35 U.S.C. § 134.  We will reverse this rejection because we find that appellant’s     
            disclosure conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing
            date, appellant was in possession of the claimed invention.                                 

                                                                                                       
                  1 This appeal is related to appeals in related application nos. 09/357,709 (appeal    
            no. 2006-0633), 09/357,710 (appeal no. 2006-1520) and 09/929,546 (appeal no. 2006-          
            0352).  We have considered these appeals together.                                          
                  2 Appellant requested an oral hearing in this case, however, after reviewing the      
            case, we have determined that an oral hearing will not be necessary and have rendered       
            a decision based on the record.  See 37 CFR §§ 41.47(a),(f).                                




Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007