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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 PERRY F. RENSHAW
__________
Appeal No. 2006-1066
Application No. 09/810,109
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before SCHEINER, ADAMS, and GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judges.
GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims to a method of treating alcohol dependency. The
examiner has rejected the claims as anticipated by and/or obvious over prior art. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134. Because the cited references support a prima
facie case of anticipation and/or obviousness, which Appellant has not rebutted, we
affirm two of the four anticipation rejections and the obviousness rejection. We do not
reach a decision regarding the remaining two anticipation rejections.
Background
The specification describes methods of treating alcohol dependency, as well as
other conditions. Specification, page 3, lines 15-17. “Dependency” is defined as
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007