Appeal 2007-0856
Application 09/281,474
Thus, we do not agree that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie
case that the patented compounds, comprising a quinolone nonpeptide or a
benzodiazepine nonpeptide, are not patentably distinct from the instantly
claimed compounds, comprising a peptide or peptidomimetic targeting
moiety. We therefore reverse the obviousness-type double patenting
rejection of claims 1-10, 12-35, 48-50, 52, and 53.
OTHER ISSUE
As discussed in footnote 1, there is arguably some ambiguity as to
whether claim 1 necessarily requires a linking group. If prosecution of this
case is continued, this ambiguity should be resolved.
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 12-15, 17, 19-21, 25, 27, 28,
31-35, 48-50, 52, and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, we reverse the
rejection of claims 1-10, 12-35, 48-50, 52, and 53 for obviousness-type
double patenting. Thus, claims 3-10, 16, 18, 22-24, 26, 29, and 30 are not
currently subject to a rejection.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013