Appeal 2007-2956
Application 10/677,733
the gating of the HERG K+ channels through the binding of small molecule
or protein effectors” (id., at 854, col. 2). Thus, despite having a tightly
packed core with no pre-formed cavity, in view of its similarity to other PAS
domain proteins, Morais Cabral suggested that small molecules might
regulate eag domain activity as they do for other PAS domains.
In sum, we conclude that Appellants did not sustain their burden in
rebutting the case of prima facie obviousness of claim 1. The rejection is
affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)). 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this
paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the Examiner, in which event the proceeding
will be remanded to the Examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . .
Should the Appellants elect to prosecute further before the Examiner
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)(1), in order to preserve the right to seek
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013