Ex Parte Gugger et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesOct 26, 201011105953 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 26, 2010) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES __________ Ex parte ERIC T. GUGGER, CAROLYN GOOD, and ELLEN M. SILVA __________ Appeal 2009-008569 Application 11/105,953 Technology Center 1600 __________ Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DEMETRA J. MILLS and JEFFEREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MILLS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134. The Examiner has rejected the claims for anticipation. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-008569 Application 11/105,953 2 STATEMENT OF CASE The following claim is representative. 15. A kit for modifying inflammation within a subject, comprising: a source of calcium; and an instruction recorded on a tangible medium, the instruction including indicia indicating a dosage regimen of a therapeutic amount of the source of calcium to be consumed by the subject to decrease a level of an inflammatory marker in the subject, wherein the inflammatory marker is at least one member of the set consisting of: C-reactive protein, serum amyloid A, IL-1, IL-6, tumor necrosis factor alpha, fibrinogen, white blood cell count, VCAM, ICAM, and selectins. Cited References Uiterwaal US 4,710,387 Dec. 1, 1987 Uchtman US 4,812,311 Mar. 14, 1989 Neer et al. US 4,833,125 May 23, 1989 Kalala et al. US 4,871,554 Oct. 3, 1989 Grounds of Rejection 1. Claims 15, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Uchtman (US 4,812,311). 2. Claims 15, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Neer et al. (US 4,833,125). 3. Claims 15, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Uiterwaal et al. (US 4,710,387). 4. Claims 15, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kalala et al. (US 4,871,554). Appeal 2009-008569 Application 11/105,953 3 ANALYSIS We adopt the Examiner’s fact finding, statement of rejection and analysis as our own. We affirm the pending rejections for the reasons of record. 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 dm GENERAL MILLS, INC. P.O. BOX 1113 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation