Appeal No. 1996-3017
Application No. 08/851,810
Accordingly, appealed claims 3, 4, 7-10, 12, 13 and 17-20
stand or fall together with the independent claim upon which
they depend.
Appealed claims 2-5, 12, 17 and 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kosuge, Rizzi, Bell
and Langdon in view of Bonzom and Akiyama. Claims 6-10, 13,
19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kosuge, Rizzi, Bell and Langdon in view of
Evans, Weissberger and Akiyama.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant's arguments
for patentability. However, inasmuch as we find that the
examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness is supported by the
factual findings made by the examiner, we will sustain the
examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons expressed
in the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
We consider first the examiner's rejection of claims 2-5,
12, 17 and 18. There is no dispute that Kosuge, Rizzi, Bell
and Langdon, the primary references, disclose processes for
preparing appellant's product, an alkyl-pyrazine, by reacting
appellant's reactants in an aqueous medium. The primary
references do not disclose isolating the product from the
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007