Ex Parte Gugger et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 26, 2010

11105953 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 26, 2010)

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