`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 1643
`
`11.
`
`The specification is objected to because the use of
`
`improperly demarcated
`
`trademarks has been noted in this application. Although the use of trademarks is
`
`permissible in patent applications,
`
`the proprietary nature of
`
`the marks should be
`
`respected and every effort made to prevent
`
`their use in any manner that might
`
`adversely affect their validity as trademarks. See MPEP § 608.01 (v).
`
`An example of such an improperly demarcated trademark appearing in the
`
`specification is BiacoreT'V'; see, e.g., paragraph [0282] of the published application2.
`
`Appropriate correction is
`
`required.
`
`Each letter of a trademark should be
`
`capitalized or otherwise the trademark should be demarcated with the appropriate
`
`symbol
`
`indicating its proprietary nature (e.g., TM, ®), and accompanied by generic
`
`terminology. Applicants may identify trademarks using the “Trademark” search engine
`
`under
`
`“USPTO
`
`Search
`
`Collections”
`
`on
`
`the
`
`Internet
`
`at
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/search.html.
`
`12.
`
`Claim 3 is objected to because of the redundant recitation of “wherein the
`
`antibody reduces ligand-induced growth of an ErbB-2 and ErbB-3 positive cell”‘°’.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`13.
`
`Claim 3 is objected to because the claim recites, “wherein the cell has at least
`
`100.000 ErbB-2 cell-surface receptors per cell”. As the claim refers to only one cell
`
`it
`
`makes no sense to refer to the number of receptors per cell.
`
`It is suggested that this issue might best be remedied by amending the claim to
`
`recite, for example, “wherein the cell is a cell having at least 100,000 copies of ErbB-2
`
`on its surface”.
`
`2 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0037145-A1.
`
`3 Claim 3 depends from claim 2, which recites this same limitation.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
We are unable to display this document.
HTTP Error 500: Internal Server Error
