Appeal No. 1997-2792
Application 08/244,735
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Claussner et al. (Claussner) 5,149,696 Sep. 22, 1992
Eur. Pat. App. (Claussner) 384,842 Aug. 29, 1990
The issue presented for review is whether the examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1 through 7 and 14 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Claussner (U.S. Patent No. 5,149,696 or European Patent 384,842).
Discussion
On consideration of the record, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 predicated on each of the above -cited references.
The teaching of each Claussner reference is essentially the same. Each
reference discloses 19-nor steroid compounds meeting the terms of independent
claim 1 except for applicants’ 11-substituted moiety. As best illustrated in U.S.
Patent No. 5,149,696, columns 1 and 2, each prior art reference discloses that its
11-substituted moiety terminates at the “left hand” end with a carbamate or
amide functional group. The examiner’s position to the contrary, notwithstanding,
the compounds recited in claim 1 do not include any such carbamate or amide
functional group a t the 11-position. The examiner does not point to any reason,
suggestion, or motivation stemming from the prior art which would have led a
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007