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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 CARL HENRY LAWYER, MATTHEW CARL LAWYER
and EDWARD ZADOK LAWYER
__________
Appeal No. 2006-3260
Application No. 10/384,044
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before ADAMS, LINCK and LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-12, 14, 16-19, 21-29 and 31-36, which are
all the claims pending in the application.1
Claims 19 and 33 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and are
reproduced below:
19. A pharmaceutical composition comprising an aqueous suspension of
Modafinil for nasal administration, wherein said Modafinil has a particle
size of 1 to 10 microns.
1 Appellants assert that “[c]laims 13, 15 and 30 were withdrawn [from consideration] in
Amendment B. Brief, page 2. However, upon review of “Amendment B”, received May 20, 2004,
we note that claims 13, 15 and 30 were cancelled without prejudice. The Examiner
acknowledged that these claims were cancelled at page 3 of the Office Action, mailed September
2, 2004.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013