Ex Parte Muller et al - Page 1



                          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                                  is not binding precedent of the Board.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