Ex Parte RAJOPADHYE 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                                for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 MILAND RAJOPADHYE, D. SCOTT EDWARDS,                                                 
                               THOMAS D. HARRIS, STUART J. HAMINWAY,                                                   
                                   SHUANG LIU, and PRAHLAD R. SINGH                                                    
                                                 Appeal 2007-0856                                                      
                                              Application 09/281,474                                                   
                                             Technology Center 1600                                                    
                                              Decided: May 21, 2007                                                    
                 Before TONI R. SCHEINER, ERIC GRIMES, and LORA M. GREEN,                                              
                 Administrative Patent Judges.                                                                         
                 GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                  

                                             DECISION ON APPEAL                                                        
                        This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134 involving claims to a                                  
                 compound comprising a targeting moiety and a chelator.  The Examiner has                              
                 rejected the claims for obviousness and obviousness-type double patenting.                            
                 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.  6(b).  We affirm the obviousness                               
                 rejection and reverse the obviousness-type double patenting rejection.                                

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013