Ex Parte Baker et al - Page 1

                    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                           for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 KEVIN P. BAKER,                                        
                                 JIAN CHEN, LUC DESNOYERS,                                          
                            AUDREY GODDARD, PAUL J. GODOWSKI,                                       
                                AUSTIN L. GURNEY, JAMES PAN,                                        
                            VICTORIA SMITH, COLIN K. WATANABE,                                      
                             WILLIAM I. WOOD, and ZEMIN ZHANG                                       
                                         Appeal 2007-0057                                           
                                       Application 10/174,586                                       
                                      Technology Center 1600                                        
                                            ON BRIEF                                                
              Before SCHEINER, ADAMS, and GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judges.                     
              GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                  

                                      DECISION ON APPEAL                                            
                    This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134 involving claims to a                   
              polypeptide.  The Examiner has rejected the claims as lacking patentable              
              utility, lacking adequate written description, and anticipated.  We have              
              jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.  6(b).  We affirm the rejections for lack of            

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013