The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte AVI J. ASHKENAZI, KEVIN P. BAKER, DAVID A. BOTSTEIN,
LUC DESNOYERS, DAN L. EATON, NAPOLEONE FERRARA,
SHERMAN FONG, WEI-QIANG GAO, HANSPETER GERBER,
MARY E. GERRITSEN, AUDREY GODDARD, PAUL J. GODOWSKI,
AUSTIN L. GURNEY, IVAR J. KLJAVIN, JENNIE P. MATHER,
MARY A. NAPIER, JAMES PAN, NICHOLAS F. PAONI,
MARGARET ANN ROY, TIMOTHY A. STEWART, DANIEL TUMAS,
COLIN K. WATANABE, MICKEY P. WILLIAMS,
WILLIAM I. WOOD, and ZEMIN ZHANG
__________
Appeal 2007-1149
Application 10/066,273
Technology Center 1600
__________
Decided: June 7, 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 an
antibody. The Examiner has rejected the claims for lacking utility. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013