Appeals 2006-1443 and 2006-1465
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/004,950 and 90/005,200
1 Claims 1-5 are the only claims in the patent.
2 The rejection is based on double patenting.
3 The real party in interest is Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, which we
4 are told was formerly Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd.
5 Reexamination was requested by E. Thomas Wheelock, Esq., of the firm of
6 Morrison & Foerster LLP (Palo Alto, CA).
7 Oral argument took place on 26 June 2006.
8 A transcript (Tr-) of oral argument has been made part of the record.
9 For reasons that follow, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-5 based
10 on double patenting is affirmed.
11
12 B. The “new evidence appendix”
13 Following docketing of the appeal, the board requested that Appellants file a new
14 evidence appendix comprising documents having exhibit numbers beginning with
15 Exhibit 1001.
16 The Board appreciates Appellants' compliance with the request.
17 We have considered the following record in resolving the appeal:
18 (1) The specification, including the claims, of the patent under
19 reexamination—Ochiai ‘216.
20 (2) The appeal brief filed 2 September 2005.
21 (3) The Examiner’s answer entered 16 November 2005.
22 (4) The new evidence appendix filed 20 June 2006, except as noted
23 below, but only to the extent that particular and specific portions of the documents have
24 been called to our attention in the appeal brief or a declaration. The mere fact that a
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007