Appeal No. 95-2603
Application 07/915,871
ions is this particular linking of two cyclam moieties.
Therefore there is no motivation or suggestion to make the
proposed molecular modifications needed to arrive at the
claimed active ingredients. See In re Lalu, 747 F.2d 703,
705, 223 USPQ 1257, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1984) and compare In re
Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en
banc), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). Thus the rejection
of claims 7, 8 and 23 under § 103 in view of Ciampolini, as
interpreted and applied by the examiner, cannot be sustained.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner’s new ground of
rejection under § 103 is reversed.
D. The Rejections Under 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
The first new ground of rejection involves claim 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ciampolini. Compound 2
on page 3527 of Ciampolini is believed to be identical to the
active ingredient 11,11'-(1,2-ethanediyl)bis-1,4,8,11-
tetraazacyclo-tetradecane recited in claim 23. Initially, we
find that appellants' use of the designation 11,11'- in
identifying 11,11'-(1,2-ethanediyl)bis-1,4,8,11-
tetraazacyclotetradecane is somewhat odd. The compound named
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007