Appeal No. 2002-0795
Application No. 09/128,036
explain why the structural similarity of the compounds produced
by Cody and Smith would have motivated one of ordinary skill in
this art to modify the reactants and method used in obtaining the
products, especially in view of the teaching away from mixtures
found in Cody.
Finally, the examiner states another alternate motivation to
combine the references, i.e., Smith teaches use of mixtures of
reactants “to be able to screen a large number of diverse
compounds in a short timespan” (Answer, page 8). However, the
examiner has not explained or presented evidence why one of
ordinary skill in this art would have modified the method of Cody
in view of this teaching of Smith since Cody also teaches
screening a large number of compounds in a short timespan (the
time of the simultaneous reactions).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Brief and
Reply Brief, we determine that the examiner has not established
any motivation to combine the references as proposed and
therefore we determine that no prima facie case of obviousness
has been presented. Accordingly, the rejection of the claims on
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Cody in view of Smith is
reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007