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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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 MURALEEDHARAN G. NAIR,
HAIBO WANG, GALE M. STRASBURG,
ALDEN M. BOOREN and JAMES I. GRAY
______________
Appeal No. 2006-1163
Application 09/761,143
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, KRATZ and DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
We remand the application to the examiner for consideration and explanation of issues
raised by the record. 37 CFR §41.50(a)(1) (2005); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(MPEP) § 1211 (8th ed., Rev. 3, August 2005).
The examiner advances on appeal only the ground of rejection of the appealed claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written description requirement,1 on the basis that “[t]he
specific mixture[,] cyaniding with an anthocyanin, is not specifically taught or implied in the
original disclosure and therefore constitutes new matter” (answer, pages 3-4).
Appellants point out in argument that they disclose at page 8, ll. 27-30, of their
specification “the ‘mixture of anthocyanins, bioflavonoids, and phenolics,’” that “[t]his mixture
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007