Appeal No. 94-0432
Application 07/839,728
This is an appeal from an examiner’s final rejection of
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9-11 and 14-16, all claims pending in this
application. Claims 1, 4, 7, 9-11 and 14-16 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being unpatentable in view of the
combined teachings of Marquez et al. (Marquez), U.S.
4,968,690, patented November 6, 1990, filed Jan. 19, 1989;
Chemical Abstracts (Eriksson ), Vol. 112, 18103b (1989);2
Chemical Abstracts (Yokata), Vol. 113, 184252q (1990);
Chemical Abstracts (Webb), Vol. 109, 23303j (1988); and
Chemical Abstracts (Kraus), Vol. 113, 147783t (1990).3
2 The examiner cited Eriksson et al. (Eriksson II),
U.S. 4,665,062, patented May 12, 1987, in the listing of prior
art of record on page 2 of the Examiner’s Answer, as
illustrating
the state of the art. There appears to be some confusion as
to whether appellants’ claims stand finally rejected over the
cited prior art teaching including Eriksson I (C.A. 112,
18103b (1989), cited above), or Eriksson II (U.S. 4,665,062).
The confusion
is apparent from appellants’ references to the description of
phosphonoformic acid in Eriksson II (Appellants’ Brief, p. 2,
last three lines; Appellants’ Reply Brief, p. 4, l. 4-13) and
the examiner’s statement that “[t]he Eriksson et al reference
does not mention phosphonoformic acid” (Examiner’s Answer, p.
7, l. 8-9).
We have considered the merits of the examiner’s rejection in
view
of the teaching of Eriksson I and Eriksson II.
3 The examiner has rejected appellants’ claims in view
of
the published abstracts of four journal articles. The
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007