Appeal 2006-3020
Application 10/109,374
20: 0431 (“radiolabeled LTB4 antagonist compounds . . . can be synthesized
using standard synthetic methods known to those skilled in the art”).)
For the reasons given by the Examiner and based on our findings and
reasoning above, we affirm the § 103(a) rejection of claim 39. We also
affirm the § 103(a) rejection of claims 6-14, 34-38, and 40-49, as they were
not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).
Double Patenting
Claims 6-14 and 34-49 are provisionally rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-11 of
U.S. 6,416,733 and the claims of copending Application No. 10/151,663.
(Answer 7-8.) Appellants do not challenge this ground of rejection on
appeal. Thus, we affirm.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we reverse the § 112 rejections of claims 6-14 and 34-
50; affirm the § 103(a) rejection of claims 6-14 and 34-50; and affirm the
obviousness-type double patenting rejections of claims 6-14 and 34-49.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2006).
AFFIRMED
lbg
LOUIS J. WILLE
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY
PATENT DEPARTMENT
P O BOX 4000
PRINCETON NJ 08543-4000
15
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Last modified: September 9, 2013