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is not binding precedent of the Board.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 CHRISTOPHER A. MULLER, ELIZABETH A. BANCROFT,
JANET K. CHEETHAM, HAROLD G. JENSEN, TERESA H. KUAN,
DAVID F. POWER, and KEVIN D. SKULE
__________
Appeal 2007-2524
Application 10/194,834
Technology Center 1600
__________
Decided: July 31, 2007
__________
Before DONALD E. ADAMS, LORA M. GREEN, and RICHARD M.
LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of claims 36-50.
We have jurisdiction of this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF CASE
The claimed invention of claim 36, the only independent claim on
appeal, is directed to a composition comprising “a quinolone component” in
“a range of about 0.15% weight/volume to about 1.1% weight/volume” and
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013