Appeal No. 1996-1080
Application No. 07/869,111
blocking or protective technique in organic syntheses
generally and with regard to certain antibiotic compounds
particularly.” (Decision dated Dec. 17, 1990, Paper No. 20,
page 2, see Kirk-Othmer, paragraph bridging pages 964-965).
In view of this teaching and the uncontested findings
regarding the method of Watanabe, we agree with the examiner’s
conclusion that silylation, instead of ester formation, to
block or protect the hydroxyl groups of the erythromycin
derivatives of Watanabe would have been well within the
ordinary skill in the art.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has established a prima facie case of obviousness in view of
the reference evidence. Appellants have submitted evidence of
unexpected results in rebuttal to the examiner’s evidence of
obviousness. Accordingly, we must reevaluate the arguments
and evidence for and against patentability based on the
totality of the record. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Appellants have submitted and discussed three
Declarations under 37 CFR § 1.132 by Watanabe (hereafter the
Watanabe I, Watanabe II, and Watanabe III Declarations,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007