Appeal No. 95-4826
Application 08/141,752
than one further SO H group" and may "advantageously contain up
3
to six sulphonic acid groups."
Appellants erroneously allege that Friedrich "fails to teach
an alky group connected to the nitrogen atoms." As noted by the
examiner, Friedrich's alkylene group in formula VIII (CH CH ) is
2 2
identical to appellants' (CH ) , notwithstanding the fact that
2 m
appellants refer to the group as alkyl rather than alkylene.
Appellants argue that the precedents relied on by the
examiner for asserting a prima facie case of obviousness are not
on point. We disagree with appellants, since we find the fact
situation in Fauque, supra, to be analogous to the situation
here. In Fauque, the claimed compound differed from the
reference in that it contained two methyl groups (one on each
ring, adjacent to the O atom) whereas the reference was
unsubstituted at the position adjacent to the O atom. The Board
agreed with the examiner that the claimed compound was a
homologue of the compound disclosed in the reference and presumed
to be equivalent and stated further:
An inspection of the formula of appellant's compound in
question discloses an analogous difference over the compound of
the prior art. The fact that two methyl groups are involved is
not seen to change the situation since this merely represents the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007