Appeal No. 95-2603
Application 07/915,871
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 7, 8
and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lehn is
reversed.
B. The Rejection under § 103 over Lehn, Rowatt, and
Zimenkovskii in view of Williams
Lehn has been discussed above. Rowatt and Zimenkovskii
are similarly deficient in failing to disclose any compounds
within the scope of the active ingredients in the appealed
claims. Rowatt discloses “aliphatic polyamines” but does not
disclose what structures are encompassed by this term.
Zimenkovskii is even further removed in disclosing only
heterocyclic compounds containing nitrogen and sulfur with no
disclosure or teaching of any compounds similar to the bis
compounds recited in the claims on appeal. The examiner has
failed to point out what part of the references are being
relied upon to show “the claimed designated compounds”5
(answer, page 5). Williams is relied upon by the examiner for
the teaching as old and well known the treatment of Herpes
virus with the claimed designated compounds (answer, page 6).
5 We consider only the references cited by the examiner, i.e., the abstracts,
and not the underlying articles upon which these abstracts are based.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007