Appeal No. 97-1278
Application No. 08/046,286
application, has been allowed by the examiner. A copy of
illustrative claim 10 is appended to this decision.
In the rejection of the appealed claims, the examiner
relies upon the following reference:
Rieger et al. (Rieger) 5,286,411 Feb. 15, 1994
(filed June 5, 1991)
Appealed claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the U.S.
patent to Rieger.2
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we find that the examiner's rejection is
free of reversible error. Accordingly, we will sustain the
examiner's rejection.
Appellants do not dispute that the claimed compounds are
encompassed by claim 1 of Rieger, specifically, the compounds
defined by Rieger's structural formulae II and V. Rather,
appellants contend that the claimed compounds of Rieger do not
2We presume that the examiner's rejection of claims 10
and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) or (g)/§ 103 has been
withdrawn by the examiner in view of appellants' submission of
a corrected Statement of Common Ownership with the Reply
Brief. The Examiner's Answer to the Reply Brief does not
repeat the rejection.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007