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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 DONALD W. PETERSEN,
KELLY C. RICHELSOPH,
WARREN O. HAGGARD,
CARY P. HAGAN and
DONALD A. RANDOLPH
__________
Appeal No. 2006-07041
Application No. 10/060,697
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before ADAMS, GRIMES and LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion by GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.
Concurring opinion by ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims to a bone graft composition, which the examiner has
rejected for obviousness and obviousness-type double patenting. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 134. We affirm the rejections for obviousness-type double patenting
but reverse the rejection for obviousness.
1 The rejections on appeal in this application are similar to those in commonly assigned applications
09/327,761 (Appeal No. 2006-0766) and 09/947,833 (Appeal No. 2006-2627). Accordingly, we have
considered these appeals together.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007