Appeal No. 95-0885
Application 07/725,327
that Hindley’s compounds and derivatives would alleviate essential hypertension. We find no
evidence of record which would rebut the prima facie case. In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041, 228
USPQ 685, 687 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-1473, 223 USPQ 785, 787-
788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-17 for obviousness over Hindley is
affirmed while the rejection of claim 18 over Hindley is reversed. Accordingly, the decision of the
examiner is affirmed-in-part.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
JOHN D. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007