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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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
BARBARA E. BLUM
__________
Appeal No. 2006-26271
Application No. 09/947,833
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before ADAMS, GRIMES and LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion by GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.
Opinion dissenting in part 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 10/060,697 (Appeal No. 2006-0704). 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