Appeal 2007-1348
Application 10/650,253
1 The application on appeal is said to be a continuation of application
2 10/152,106, filed 21 May 2002, which claims benefit of (1) provisional
3 application 60/343,041, filed 21 December 2001, (2) provisional application
4 60/297,741, filed 12 June 2001, and (3) provisional application 60/292,565,
5 filed 22 May 2001.
6 The real party in interest is Pfizer Inc.
7 The Examiner rejected claims 125 and 128-144 for failure to comply
8 with the enablement requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
9 The Examiner further rejected claims 125 and 128-144 as being
10 anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), alternatively as being unpatentable
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), over Bright.
12 The Examiner still further rejected claims 125 and 128-144 as being
13 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Singer and Curatolo. (The
14 reader should know that no references to et al. are made in this opinion.)
15 The following references were relied upon by the Examiner.
16 Name Patent Number Issue Date
17 Bright US 4,474,768 02 Oct. 1984
18 Curatolo US 5,605,889 25 Feb. 1997
19 Singer US 6,365,574 B2 02 Apr. 2002
20
21 Bright and Curatolo are prior art vis-à-vis appellants under 35 U.S.C.
22 § 102(b).
23 Singer is facially prior art vis-à-vis appellants under 35 U.S.C.
24 § 102(e). Appellants have abandoned any attempt to antedate Singer.
25 Supplemental Reply Brief, filed 16 October 2006.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013