PTO Form 1960 (Rev 9/2007)
`
`OMB No. xxxx-)o<xx (Exp. x/xxxx)
`
`Request for Reconsideration after Final Action
`
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`
`
`
`
`SERIAL NUMBER
`
`78970985
`
`LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED
`
`LAW OFFICE 106
`
`Input Field
`
`Entered
`
`
`
`MARK SECTION (no change)
`
`
`
`
`
`The Examining Attorney has refused registration of the mark NNR THERAPEUTICS
`(“Applicant’s Mark”) for use with “pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of central nervous
`system diseases and disorders, inflammatory diseases and disorders, and addictions” (“Applicant’s
`Goods”) on the grounds that the mark is merely descriptive. Applicant has disclaimed the word
`“THERAPEUTICS” and Applicant does not dispute that the letters “NNR” in Applicant’s Mark
`stand for “neuronal nicotinic receptors.” Nevertheless, Applicant respectfully submits that its mark
`is not descriptive because the initials “NNR” are not descriptive of Applicant’s Goods.
`Ar
`Descriptiveness Standard for Acrgyms
`The test for determining whether an acronym or initialism is merely descriptive is whether or
`not the initials “have become so generally understood as representing descriptive words as to be
`accepted as substantially synonymous therewith.” Modern Optics, Inc. v. The Univers Lens Co., 110
`USPQ 293, 295 (C.C.P.A. 1956) (emphasis added) (holding that the letters CV were not descriptive
`of ophthalmic lens blanks and eyeglass lenses because the letters were not accepted as substantially
`similar with the descriptive words “continuous vision”). The Modern Optics rule has been adopted
`and applied by the TTAB and other jurisdictions.
`_S_e_e, gg, Welfig Services Inc. v. Forman, 85
`USPQ2d 1233 (1 1th Cir. 2007); Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. The Stroh Brewery C0,, 224 USPQ 657 (8th
`Cir. 1984); In re Finisar Corp, 78 USPQ2d 1618 (TTAB 2006); Racine Industries Inc. v. Bane-Clene
`Qo_rp., 35 USPQ2d 1832 (TTAB 1994); In re Harco Corporation, 220 USPQ 1075 (TTAB 1984); I_n
`re Nissan Jidosha Kabushiki Kaish2_1_,L/A/ Nissan Motor Co_.rLtd. (TTAB May 24, 2001),
`http://wvvw.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/foia/ttab/2eissues/2001/7553 1325 .pdf (non-precedential);
`Avtex Fibers Inc. v. Gentex Cpmation, 223 USPQ 625 (TTAB 1984).
`In several instances the Trademark Office and the Board haveufound that acronyms were not
`descriptive, despite the descriptive or even generic nature of the words for which the initials stood.
`S_ee In re Council on Certification of Nurse Anesthetists, 85 USPQ2d 1403 (TTAB 2007) (holding
`that CRNA was not generic even though term “certified registered nurse anesthetist” is generic); In
`re Nissan (non-precedential) (holding that the letters “SUT” were not descriptive of the applicant’s
`motor vehicles because the letters were not generally understood as substantially synonymous with
`the descriptive words “sport utility truck”); Racine Industries, 35 USPQ2d 1832 (holding that the
`.term “PCA” was not descriptive as it is not understood to stand for “Professional Cleaner’s
`Association”); In re Harco Corporation, 220 USPQ 1075 (holding that CPL was not descriptive of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`“computerized potential log”). Applicant notes that Coley Pharmaceutical’s Application Ser.
`No. 77/747,923, for the mark TLR THERAPEUTICS for use with pharmaceuticals, was allowed for
`registration on the Principal Register. As the intemet abstracts and print-outs from Coley
`Pharmaceutical’s web site illustrate (Exhibit I), the letters “TLR” stand for “toll-like receptor” and
`Coley Pharmaceutical’s TLR THERAPEUTICS act on these receptors. By allowing this mark to
`register, the Trademark Office determined that the letters “TLR,” although they stand for the
`descriptive words “toll-like receptors,” are not generally understood as substantially synonymous
`with the words “toll-like receptors.” Similarly, while the words “neuronal nicotinic receptors” may
`be descriptive of a function of Applicant’s Goods, the letters “NNR” are not interpreted as
`substantially synonymous with these words and thus the letters “NNR” are not descriptive of
`Applicant’s Goods.
`l_3_.
`Evidence of Meaning of the Letters “NNR”
`The Examining Attorney has introduced acronym definitions from Acronym Finder in
`support of the contention that “NNR” is a common abbreviation for “neuronal nicotinic
`receptors.”[i] Acronym Finder is a web site operated by a couple from their home. fie Exhibit 3.
`Anyone can submit an acronym to be included in the dictionary and the Acronym Finder’s terms of
`use caution users to “use information from this site at your own risk.” E Exhibit Q. While the web
`site operators confirm the meaning of acronyms submitted by users, their research appears to be
`based on personal knowledge and other web sites they deem credible. _S_e§ Exhibit 3. In considering
`similar evidence regarding the descriptiveness of the letters “SUT” in In re Nissan, the TTAB held
`that “this on-line Acronym Finder is not the type of material which is reliable enough for us to take
`judicial notice. Accordingly, we have accorded no weight to this Acronym Finder.” Because the
`Acronym Finder database is composed of acronyms submitted by anyone, and these acronyms
`appear to be validated primarily by the intemet research conducted by two individuals, Applicant
`submits that these definitions are of little value in determining whether or not “NNR” is descriptive.
`In In re Nissan, the TTAB considered evidence from several recent dictionaries and acronym
`dictionaries showing that the letters “SUT” did not appear in any of these references. Similarly,
`Applicant attaches as Exhibit § excerpts from fifteen recent dictionaries and acronym dictionaries
`showing the pages where the letter “NNR” would appear in those references. Because the letters
`“NNR” do not appear in any of these dictionaries, Applicant submits that the letters are not generally
`understood to stand for the words “neuronal nicotinic receptors.”
`C.
`Evidence of Use of the Letters “NNR”
`In addition to excerpts from dictionaries, the Examining Attorney has introduced ten excerpts
`from press releases, intemet sites, articles and congressional testimony to support the contention that
`“NNR” is descriptive. Most of these excerpts refer to either Applicant’s product and research, or
`product development and research that Applicant is conducting with other companies. Only _o_n_e_ of
`the excerpts (from neurosearch.com) refers to the use of “NNR” by a party not affiliated with
`Applicant. In similar cases involving acronyms, the Board has looked at evidence of third party or
`descriptive use of the acronym in question and has determined that the evidence was insufficient to
`support a finding that the acronym was descriptive. fie Modern Optics, 110 USPQ at 294 (“[w]hile
`the record shows that there are individuals to whom the letters ‘CV’ constitute a generic designation
`of trifocal lenses, we are of the opinion it has not been established that such is the rule rather than the
`exception”); In re Harco Corp. 220 USPQ at 1077 (“[e]ven granting that in some of these materials
`‘CPL’ is used as an equivalent of the words ‘computerized potential log,’ the designation ‘CPL’ is
`not uniformly so used. Nor is there any other evidence of record that the letters ‘CPL’ have a
`generally understood meaning in the f1eld.”) Thus, even some evidence of use of the letters “NNR”
`by third parties in a descriptive sense is not dispositive of the question of whether the letters are
`generally understood to be substantially synonymous with the underlying terms’.
`Furthermore, in mgr one of the introduced excer;)t_s, the author explains that “NNR” means
`
`

`
`“neuronal nicotinic receptor” before using the acronym. Thus, the authors of these articles
`apparently assume that their audience does not know what the letters “NNR” stand for, and conclude
`that these initials must be explained. If the letters “NNR” were truly descriptive, like the letters
`“SUV” or “ATV,” then an author would not have to make such an explanation. The fact that the
`meaning of the letters “NNR” must be explained is strong evidence that the letters are not descriptive
`under the Modern Optics test.
`.
`D_.
`Lack of Competitive Need for the “NNR” Acronym
`As noted in the office action, one of the reasons for refusing registration of descriptive marks
`is the policy of allowing competitors and other businesses to use common descriptive language in
`describing competing goods and services. In re Abcor Development Corp, 200 USPQ 215
`(C.C.P.A. 1978). In this case there are plenty of alternatives that may be used, and that are used, to
`describe neuronal nicotinic receptors and related products. Applicant attaches as Exhibit Q abstracts
`from over twenty articles from PubMed which refer to “neuronal nicotinic receptors,” “neuronal
`nicotinic acetylcholine receptors” “nicotinic receptors,” “nACHRs,” “neuronal nicotinic ACh
`receptor,” or “nAchR.”[ii] All of these designations refer to the same biological component, but
`different terms and abbreviations are used in the scientific community. None of these abstracts use
`the letters “NNR.” These abstracts illustrate that the letters “NNR” are not generally used to
`describe neuronal nicotinic receptors and that there are several alternative terms and abbreviations
`that are used to identify these receptors.
`_l_3_.
`Conclusion
`In summary, the evidence of record shows that the initials “NNR” are not generally
`understood to be “substantially synonymous” with “neuronal nicotinic receptors.” Thus, the NNR
`THERAPEUTICS mark, particularly when considered as a whole, is not a descriptive mark and is
`entitled to registration on the Principal Register. Finally, as the Board has noted on several
`occasions, the benefit of the doubt in cases involving a determination of whether a mark is
`descriptive or suggestive should be given to the applicant. In re Council on Certification of Nurse
`Anesthetists, 85 USPQ2d at 1415 (“[w]e readily admit that we have doubt as to the character of
`CRNA, but we believe such doubt should be resolved in app1icant’s favor”). Accordingly, Applicant
`respectively submits that the application is now in condition for passage to publication, which action
`is respectfully requested.
`
`[i] The Examining Attorney introduced definitions from two web sites. The first search was conducted through
`OneLook Dictionary’s web site, but the search results came from Acronym Finder, as evidenced by the URL. The
`second search was conducted through the Free Dictionary by Farlex, which also uses Acronym Finder. §e_e_ Exhibit ;
`[ii]
`As noted in the description of neuronal nicotinic receptors in the excerpt from targaceptcom introduced in
`the Final Office Action, acetylcholine binds to neuronal nicotinic receptors, and the terms “neuronal nicotinic receptors”
`and “neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors” are used interchangeably in the literature, including in several of the
`attached abstracts.
`
`ORIGINAL
`PDF FILE
`
`CONVERT“)
`PDF FILE(S)
`(18 pages)
`
`http://tgate/PDF/RFR/2008/O3/13/20080313164633569387-
`78970985—0O3_001/evi_66193220126-
`161559636_._NNR_-_Exhibits_1-4.pdf
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xmll.
`\RFR0002.JPG
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFR0003 JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFR0004.JPG
`'
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml]
`\RFR0005..TPG
`'
`
`I
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFR00O6.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFR0007.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFR0008.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFR0009.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFR0010.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`
`\RFR0011.JPG
`
`E
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFR0012.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFR0013.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFR0014.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFROO15.JPG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFRO016.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT1 5\789\709\78_970985\xml1
`\RFROO17.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\789I70985\xml1 A
`
`\RFR001 8.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFR0019.JPG
`
`
`
`
`http://tgate/PDF/RFR/2008/03/13/20080313164633569387-
`78970985-003_OO2/evi_66193220126-161559636_._NNR-
`
`_Exhibit_5.pdf
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL
`PDF FILE
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFROO20.JPG
`
`CONVERTED
`
`PDF FILE(S)
`(40 pages)
`
`
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFROO21 .JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT1 5\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFR0022.JPG
`
`Illllil
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFR0023.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`
`\RFR0024.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`
`\_RF R0025 .JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`
`\RFR0026.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\;RF_R(£ME
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`
`
`
`\RFR0028.JLG_
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFROO29.JPG
`
` \\TICRS2\EXiPOR7Ii‘1. 5\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFROO30.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFR0031.JPG
`
`
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFROO32.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFROO33.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFR0O34.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFRO03 5 .JPG
`
`\RFRO037.JPGllllll
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT1 5\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFRO036.JPG
`
`
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT'15\789\709\78970985\xn11]
`
`

`
`
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFR0038.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml.1
`\RFROO39.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFR0040.JPG
`'
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\Z09\78970985\xml1
`\RFR0041 .JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\‘709\78970985\xm11
`
`.
`
`\RFR0042._J_1’_G_
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFR0043 JPG
`
`.
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFR0044.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xrn11
`\RFR0045 .JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11 ,
`\RFROO46.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT1.5\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFR0047.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\7897098S\xm11
`\RFRO048.JPG
`
`V
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFR0049.J PG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFR0050.J PG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFR0051.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT1 5\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFROO52.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFR0053 .JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFR0054.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFR0055.JPG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`ORIGINAL
`
`PDF FILE
`
`'
`
`
`
`(34 pages,
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFR.0060.JPG
`‘
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFR0061.JPG
`~
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFR0062.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXP()RT1 5\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFR0063.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFR0064.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT1.5\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFR0065.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFR0066.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFRO067.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFROO68.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFR0069.JPG
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFRO070.JPG ‘
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFR0071.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml.1
`\RFR0072.JPG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\RFROO56.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xn111
`\RFR0057.JPG
`
`'
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFR0058.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`
` 9IlRQ
`
`
`
`http://tgate/PDF/RFIUZOO8/O3/13/20080313164633569387-
`78970985-003_O03/evi_66193220126-
`161559636_._NNR_-_Exhibit_6.pdf
`
`

`
`
`
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\_R_ER_0073 JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFR0074.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\x.m11
`\RFRO075.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFR0076.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFR0077.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFR0078.J'PG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFR0079.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xfn11
`\RFRO080.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`
`\RFR0081 .JPG
`
`_
`
`\\TI.C RS2\EXPORT15\789\709\7897098 5\xml1
`\RFROO82.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFR0083 .JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFROO84.J PG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFRO085 .JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xmIl
`
`XRFROO86.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFR0087.JPG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`\RFROO88.JPG
`
`.
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT1 5\789\709\78970985\xn111
`\RFR0089.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xm11
`\RFRO090.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xml1
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`\RFR009l ..lPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORTl 5\789\709\7897098 5\xmll
`\RFR0092.JPG
`
`\\TICRS2\EXPORT15\789\709\78970985\xmll
`LRFR0093.JPG
`
`DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE
`
`Exhibits as mentioned in argument.
`
`SIGNATURE SECTION
`
`RESPONSE SIGNATURE
`
`/Randy Springer/
`
`SIGNATORY'S NAME
`
`Randel S. Springer
`
`SIGNATORY'S POSITION
`
`Attorney of Record
`
`DATE SIGNED
`
`03/ 1 3/2008
`
`AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
`
`CONCURRENT APPEAL NOTICE
`FILED
`
`Y
`
`C0
`
`YES
`
`FILING INFORMATION SECTION
`
`SUBMIT DATE
`
`Thu Mar 13 16:46:33 EDT 2008
`
`USPTO/RFR—66.193.220.126-
`
`200803 131646335693 87-7_ 897
`0985-42028207add5dc9e6ec1
`33d25b55c4d6bf3-N/A-N/A-2
`0080313161559636448
`
`TEAS STAMP
`
`PTO Form 1960 (Rev 9/2007)
`
`OMB No. xxxx-xxxx (Exp. xlxxxx)
`
`
`
`Request for Reconsideration after Final Action
`
`To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`Application serial no. 78970985 has been amended as follows:
`
`ARGUMENT(S)
`In response to the substantive refu1sal(s), please note the following:
`The Examining Attorney has refused registration of the mark NNR THERAPEUTICS
`(“Appli_cant’s Mark”) for use with “pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of central nervous
`system diseases and disorders, inflammatory diseases and disorders, and addictions” (“Applicant’s
`
`

`
`Goods”) on the grounds that the mark is merely descriptive. Applicant has disclaimed the word
`“THERAPEUTICS” and Applicant does not dispute that the letters “NNR” in Applicant’s Mark stand
`for “neuronal nicotinic receptors.” Nevertheless, Applicant respectfully submits that its mark is not
`descriptive because the initials “NNR” are not descriptive of Applicant’s Goods.
`A Descriptiveness Standard for Acronyms
`The test for determining whether an acronym or initialism is merely descriptive is whether or
`not the initials “have become so generally understood as representing descriptive words as to be
`accepted as substantially synonymous therewith.” Modern Optics, Inc. v. The Univers Lens Co., 110
`USPQ 293, 295 (C.C.P.A. 1956) (emphasis added) (holding that the letters CV were not descriptive of
`ophthalmic lens blanks and eyeglass lenses because the letters were not accepted as substantially
`similar with the descriptive words “continuous vision”). The Modern Optics rule has been adopted
`and applied by the TTAB and other jurisdictions. fl, ;g,, Welding Services Inc. v. Forman, 85
`USPQ2d 1233 (11th Cir. 2007); Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. The Stroh Brewery Co., 224 USPQ 657 (8th
`Cir. 1984); In re Finisar Com, 78 USPQ2d 1618 (TTAB 2006); Racine Industries Inc. v. Bane-Clene
`Q0_I‘p., 35 USPQ2d 1832 (TTAB 1994); In re Harco Corporation, 220 USPQ 1075 (TTAB 1984); LIE
`Nissan Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha,_T/A/ Nissan Motor Co._,_Ltd. (TTAB May 24, 2001),
`http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/foia/ttab/2eissues/2001/7553 l325.pdf (non-precedential);
`Avtex Fibers Inc. v. Gentex Cogporation, 223 USPQ 625 (TTAB 1984).
`In several instances the Trademark Office and the Board have found that acronyms were not
`descriptive, despite the descriptive or even generic nature of the words for which the initials stood.
`See In re Council on Certification of Nurse Anesthetists, 85 USPQ2d 1403 (TTAB 2007) (holding that
`CRNA was not generic even though term “certified registered nurse anesthetist” is generic); I_nr_e
`Nissan (non-precedential) (holding that the letters “SUT” were not descriptive of the applicant’s motor
`Vehicles because the letters were not generally understood as substantially synonymous with the
`descriptive words “sport utility truck”); Racine Industries, 35 USPQ2d 1832 (holding that the term
`“PCA” was not descriptive as it is not understood to stand for “Professional Cleaner’s Association”);
`In re Harco Corporation, 220 USPQ 1075 (holding that CPL was not descriptive of “computerized
`potential log”). Applicant notes that Coley Pharmaceutical’s Application Ser. No. 77/747,923, for the
`mark TLR THERAPEUTICS for use with pharmaceuticals, was allowed for registration on the
`Principal Register. As the intemet abstracts and print-outs from Coley Pharmaceutical’s web site
`illustrate (Exhibit 1), the letters “TLR” stand for “toll-like receptor” and Coley Pharmaceutica1’s TLR
`THERAPEUTICS act on these receptors. By allowing this mark to register, the Trademark Office
`determined that the letters “TLR,” although they stand for the descriptive words “toll-like receptors,”
`are not generally understood as substantially synonymous with the words “toll-like receptors.”
`Similarly, while the words “neuronal nicotinic receptors” may be descriptive of a function of
`Applicant’s Goods, the letters “NNR” are not interpreted as substantially synonymous with these
`words and thus the letters “NNR” are not descriptive of Applicant’s Goods.
`l_3_.
`Evidence of Meaning of the Letters “NNR”
`The Examining Attorney has introduced acronym definitions from Acronym Finder in support
`of the contention that “NNR” is a common abbreviation for “neuronal nicotinic receptors.”[i]
`Acronym Finder is a web site operated by a couple from their home. $5; Exhibit 3. Anyone can
`submit an acronym to be included in the dictionary and the Acronym Finder’s terms of use caution
`users to “use information from this site at your own risk.” See Exhibit 4. While the web site operators
`confirm the meaning of acronyms submitted by users, their research appears to be based on personal
`knowledge and other web sites they deem credible. fie Exhibit 3. In considering similar evidence
`regarding the descriptiveness of the letters “SUT” in In re Nissan, the TTAB held that “this on-line
`Acronym Finder is not the typeof material which is reliable enough for us to take judicial notice.
`Accordingly, we have accorded no weight to this Acronym Finder.” Because the Acronym Finder
`database is composed of acronyms submitted by anyone, and these acronyms appear to be validated
`
`

`
`primarily by the intemet research conducted by two individuals, Applicant submits that these
`definitions are of little value in determining whether or not “NNR” is descriptive. In In re Nissan, the
`TTAB considered evidence from several recent dictionaries and acronym dictionaries showing that the
`letters “SUT” did not appear in any of these references. Similarly, Applicant attaches as Exhibit §
`excerpts from fifteen recent dictionaries and acronym dictionaries showing the pages where the letter
`“NNR” would appear in those references. Because the letters “NNR” do not appear in any of these
`dictionaries, Applicant submits that the letters are not generally understood to stand for the words
`“neuronal nicotinic receptors.”
`C.
`Evidence of Use of the Letters “NNR”
`In addition to excerpts from dictionaries, the Examining Attorney has introduced ten excerpts
`from press releases, intemet sites, articles and congressional testimony to support the contention that
`“NNR” is descriptive. Most of these excerpts refer to either Applicant’s product and research, or
`product development and research that Applicant is conducting with other companies. Only me of the
`excerpts (from neurosearch.com) refers to the use of “NNR” by a party not affiliated with Applicant.
`In similar cases involving acronyms, the Board has looked at evidence of third party or descriptive use
`of the acronym in question and has determined that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding
`that the acronym was descriptive. E Modern Optics, 110 USPQ at 294 (“[w]hile the record shows
`that there are individuals to whom the letters ‘CV’ constitute a generic designation of trifocal lenses,
`we are of the opinion it has not been established that such is the rule rather than the exception”); I_n;e_
`Harco Corp. 220 USPQ at 1077 (“[e]ven granting that in some of these materials ‘CPL’ is used as an
`equivalent of the words ‘computerized potential log,’ the designation ‘CPL’ is not uniformly so used.
`Nor is there any other evidence of record that the letters ‘CPL’ have a generally understood meaning in
`the field.”) Thus, even some evidence of use of the letters “NNR” by third parties in a descriptive
`sense is not dispositive of the question of whether the letters are generally understood to be
`substantially synonymous with the underlying terms.
`Furthermore, in eve_ry one of the introduced excgpts, the author explains that “NNR” means
`“neuronal nicotinic receptor” before using the acronym. Thus, the authors of these articles apparently
`assume that their audience does not know what the letters “NNR” stand for, and conclude that these
`initials must be explained. If the letters “NNR” were truly descriptive, like the letters “SUV” or
`“ATV,” then an author would not have to make such an explanation. The fact that the meaning of the
`letters “NNR” must be explained is strong evidence that the letters are not descriptive under the
`Modern Optics test.
`_
`Q Lack of (3c>:mpetitive Need for the “NNR” Acronym
`As noted in the office action, one of the reasons for refusing registration of descriptive marks is
`the policy of allowing competitors and other businesses to use common descriptive language in
`describing competing goods and services. In re Abcor Development Corp., 200 USPQ 215 (C.C.P.A.
`1978). In this case there are plenty of alternatives that may be used, and that are used, to describe
`neuronal nicotinic receptors and related products. Applicant attaches as Exhibit _6_ abstracts from over
`twenty articles from PubMed which refer to “neuronal nicotinic receptors,” “neuronal nicotinic
`acetylcholine receptors” “nicotinic receptors,” “nACHRs,” “neuronal nicotinic ACh receptor,” or
`“nAchR.”[ii] All of these designations refer to the same biological component, but different terms and
`abbreviations are used in the scientific community. None of these abstracts use the letters “NNR.”
`These abstracts illustrate that the letters “NNR” are not generally used to describe neuronal nicotinic
`receptors and that there are several alternative terms and abbreviations that are used to identify these
`receptors.
`'
`l_3_.
`Conclusion
`In summary, the evidence of record shows that the initials “NNR” are not generally understood
`to be “substantially synonymous” with “neuronal nicotinic receptors.” Thus, the NNR
`THERAPEUTICS mark, particularly when considered as a whole, is not a descriptive mark and is
`entitled to registration on the Principal Register. Finally, as the Board has noted on several occasions,
`
`

`
`the benefit of the doubt in cases involving a determination of whether a mark is descriptive or
`suggestive should be given to the applicant. In re Council on Certification of Nurse Anesthetists, 85
`USPQ2d at 1415 (“[w]e readily admit that we have doubt as to the character of CRNA, but we believe
`such doubt should be resolved in applicant’s favor”). Accordingly, Applicant respectively submits that
`the application is now in condition for passage to publication, which action is respectfully requested.
`
`[i] The Examining Attorney introduced definitions from two web sites. The first search was conducted through OneLook
`Dictionary’s web site, but the search results came from Acronym Finder, as evidenced by the URL. The second search was
`conducted through the Free Dictionary by Farlex, which also uses Acronym Finder. fie Exhibit _2_.
`[ii]
`As noted in the description of neuronal nicotinic receptors in the excerpt from targacept.com introduced in the
`Final Office Action, acetylcholine binds to neuronal nicotinic receptors, and the terms “neuronal nicotinic receptors” and
`“neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors” are used interchangeably in the literature, including in several of the attached
`abstracts.
`
`EVIDENCE
`Evidence in the nature of Exhibits as mentioned in argument. has been attached.
`
`Original PDF file:
`http://tgate/PDF/RFR/2008/O3/13/200803131646335693 87-78970985-O03__0O1/evi_66193220126-
`161 55963 6_._NNR_-_Exhibits_l -4.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) (1 8 pages)
`Evidence-l
`'
`Evidence-2
`
`Evidence-3
`
`Evidence-4
`
`Evidence_-5_
`Evidence-6
`Evidence-7
`Evidence-8
`
`Evidence-9
`Evidence— 1 O
`
`Evidence-1 1
`
`Evidence-12
`
`Evidence-1 3
`
`Evidence-14
`Evidence-1 5
`Evidence— 1 6
`Evidence-17
`
`Evidence-18
`
`Original PDF file:
`http2//tgate/PDF/RFIU20O8/03/13/20080313164633569387-78970985-003_O02/evi__66193220126-
`1 61 55 963 6_._NNR-_Exhibit_5 .pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) (40 pages)
`Evidence-1
`Evidence-2
`
`Evidence—3
`Evidence-4
`Evidence-5
`
`Evidenc§;_6_
`Evidence—7
`
`

`
`Evidence-8
`Evidence-9
`
`Evidenpe-10
`Evidence-1 1
`Evidence— 1 2
`
`Evidence—1 3
`Evidence-14
`Evidence— 1 5
`
`Evidence-16
`Evidence-17 '
`Evidence-1 8
`Evidence-1 9
`
`Evidence-20
`
`Evidence-21
`Evidence-22
`Evidence-23
`Evidence—24
`Evidence-25
`
`flgience-26
`Evidence-27
`Evidence-28
`Evidence-29
`
`Evidence-30
`
`Evidence—3 1
`
`Evidence-32
`Evidence—33
`
`Evidence-34
`Evidence-35
`
`Evidenc-6-36
`
`Evidence-37
`Evidence-3 8
`
`Evidence-39
`
`Evidence-40
`
`Original PDF file:
`http://tgate/PDF/RFW2008/03/13/20080313164633 5693 87-78970985-OO3_003/evi_66193220126-
`161 559636_._NNR_-_Exhibit_6.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) (34 pages)
`Evidence-1
`Evidence-2
`Evidence-3
`Evidence-4
`
`Evidence-5
`
`Evidence-6
`
`Evidence-7
`Evidence-8
`
`Evidence-9
`Evidence-10
`Evidence-1 1
`
`Evidence-12
`Evidence-1 3
`
`

`
`Evidence- l4
`Evidence-15
`
`Evidence-16
`Evidence-1 7
`Evidence—l 8
`
`Evidence- 1 9
`
`Evidence-20
`Evidence-21
`Evidence-22
`
`Evidence-23
`
`Evidence-24
`Evidence-25
`Evidence-26
`Evidence-27
`Evidence-28
`
`Evidence-29
`Evidence—30
`Evidence—3 1
`
`Evidence-32
`
`Evidence-33
`
`Evidence—34
`
`SIGNATURE(S)
`Request for Reconsideration Signature
`Signature: /Randy Springer/ Date: 03/13/2008
`Signatory's Name: Randel S. Springer
`Signatory's Position: Attorney of Record
`
`The signatory has confirmed that he/she is an attorney who is a member in good standing of the bar of
`the highest court of a U.S. state, which includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other
`federal territories and possessions; and he/she is currently the applicant's attorney or an associate
`thereof; and to the best of his/her knowledge, if prior to his/her appointment another U.S. attorney or a
`Canadian attorney/agent not currently associated with his/her company/firm previously represented the
`applicant in this matter: (1) the applicant has filed or is concurrently filing a signed revocation of or
`substitute power of attorney with the USPTO; (2) the USPTO has granted the request of the prior
`representative to withdraw; (3) the applicant has filed a power of attorney appointing him/her in this
`matter; or (4) the applicant's appointed U.S. attorney or Canadian attorney/agent has filed a power of
`attorney appointing him/her as an associate attorney in this matter.
`
`The applicant is filing a Notice of Appeal in conjunction with this Request for Reconsideration.
`
`Serial Number: 78970985
`Internet Transmission Date: Thu Mar 13 16:46:33 EDT 2008
`TEAS Stamp: USPTO/RFR-66.193.220.126-200803l31646335
`693 87-78970985-42028207add5dc9e6ec133d25
`b55c4d6bf3-N/A-N/A-20080313161559636448
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`
`V Science Links Japmri
`
`Gateway to Japa n’s Scientific an d Technlcal Information
`
`J
`
`“Page I ofl
`TLRT"Fo11-
`._:§):.a:.,...,..m,
`
`J
`
`360% IN‘
`
`Home
`
`'
`
`Opinions
`
`Press Releases Link Categories
`
`J-EAST
`
`TOP > J-EAST > List of Journal Titles (M) > Modern Medical Laboratory(2Q05) > Pattern recognition receptor ll. TLR (Toll-like recepi
`
`Pattern recognition receptor ll. TLR (Toll-like receptor).
`
`Accession number;05A0711627
`
`Title;Pattern recognition receptor ll. TLR (Toll—like receptor).
`
`Author;TAKAGl ATSUSHl(Abottojapan) T_AMAl HAJ.|ME(Eikob,yoin)
`Journal TitIe;Modern Medical Laboratory
`Journal Code:ZO084B
`
`ISSN:0301-2811
`
`VOL33:NO.8;PAGE.726-727(2005)
`Figure&Table&Reference;FlG.3, REF.1
`
`Pub. Country;Japan
`Language_;Japanese
`Abstract;The roleof toll—like receptor (TLR) is outlined. "-Nonselt" in natural immunity system is the molecules such as lipid, protein :
`nucleic acid as a constituent ofthe cell wall of pathogen. TLR is a molecular family which activates the natural immunity system by
`recognizing them specifically’. Simultaneously, cytokine production is accelerated, and the activation of the acquired immunitysyster
`induced. That is to say, TLR plays a role of crossiink between the natural immunity and acquired i