Appeal No. 95-3056
Application 07/833,718
J. The examiner finds that the claimed “purified”
product would have been within the ordinary skill of the
practitioner “seeking to optimize storage conditions for 2-
octynyladenosine” (Ans., p. 7, l. 19-21).
3. Examiner’s conclusions
Based on the aforementioned findings, the examiner holds
that appellants’ claimed “[s]olid 2-octynyl adenosine having a
water content of not more than 3%” would have been obvious to
a person having ordinary skill in the art in view of the
combined teachings of Miyasaka and Weygand and/or Matsuda and
Weygand. Accordingly, the subject matter of Claims 1-3, 7-13,
and 15-28 on appeal stands rejected as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Discussion
We hold that the examiner’s case for unpatentability is
based on clearly erroneous findings and improper criterion for
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we reverse
the examiner’s holding that the subject matter appellants
claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the
combined prior art teachings.
First, we hold that the examiner’s finding that 2-octynyl
adenosine hydrates are not patentably distinct from anhydrous
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007