Ex Parte Williams et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 9, 2012

09410462 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 9, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
09/410,462 10/01/1999 ANGELICA WILLIAMS ONYX1046-ORD 6889
37499 7590 01/10/2012
ONYX Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
249 E. Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
EXAMINER
ANGELL, JON E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1635
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/10/2012 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte ANGELICA WILLIAMS, CARLA HEISE,
MEISA PROPST, ADAM SAMPSON-JOHANNES,
TERRY HERMISTON, and DAVID KIRN
__________

Appeal 2011-005161
Application 09/410,462
Technology Center 1600
__________

Before DEMETRA J. MILLS, ERIC GRIMES, and
MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method
for killing dividing endothelial cells. The Examiner has rejected claims as
anticipated. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Appeal 2011-005161
Application 09/410,462

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 6, 7, 11, 15, 17, and 18 are on appeal (App. Br. 5).
1
Claims 11
and 15 are representative and are set forth in the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief (App. Br. 20-21). Claims 6, 7, 17, and 18 are not separately
argued and therefore stand or fall with claims 11 and 15. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claims 6, 7, 11, 15, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Bischoff et al. (US 6,080,578, Jun. 27, 2000)
(Ans. 3). We affirm the rejection for the reasons stated in the Examiner’s
Answer. In particular, we conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima
facie case of inherent anticipation, which Appellants have not rebutted,
again for the reasons stated in the Examiner’s Answer.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc

1
Claims 8-10, 19, 20, 28, and 34 are also pending but have been indicated to
be allowable (Final Rej. 4).