Ex Parte Bott 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                                for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 RICHARD R. BOTT, MARK S. GEBERT,                                                
                        PAAL CHRISTIAN KLYKKEN, ISABELLE MAZEAUD, and                                                  
                                        XAVIER JEAN-PAUL THOMAS                                                        
                                                 Appeal 2007-0851                                                      
                                              Application 10/385,213                                                   
                                             Technology Center 1600                                                    
                                              Decided: May 21, 2007                                                    
                 Before TONI R. SCHEINER, ERIC GRIMES, and RICHARD M.                                                  
                 LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                               
                 GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                  

                                             DECISION ON APPEAL                                                        
                        This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134 involving claims to a topical                          
                 preparation.  The Examiner has rejected the claims as obvious.  We have                               
                 jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.  6(b).  We affirm-in-part.                                              
                        The Specification describes a “topical preparation compris[ing] a                              
                 mixture of a hydrophilic carrier containing an active agent that is dispersed                         

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013