Appeal No. 1996-2738
Application 08/252,501
Hofreiter or Jarowenko (‘833 or ‘034) are affirmed.
B. The Rejection of claims 32-38 under § 103
In the Supplemental Answer dated March 19, 1996 (Paper
No. 14), the examiner states that claims 32-38 stand rejected
over Hofreiter for the reasons given in the rejection of
claims 25-27 and that “it would have been obvious to employ
the claimed
polyamines as the polyamine in Hofreiter et al for the reasons
given in discussion of the obviousness of using polyamines
having a single polysaccharide reactive group.” (Page 1).
However, the examiner has failed to present any reasoning why
one of ordinary skill in the art, in possession of the generic
“polymeric amidazolines, polyalkylene polyamines and the like”
of Hofreiter, would have selected the specific polyamines
recited in claim 32 on appeal. “We decline to extract from
Merck [Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 806-
09, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1845-48 (Fed. Cir. 1989)] the rule that
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007