Appeal No. 94-0820
Application 07/772,830
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Ohtani et al. (Ohtani) 5,043,451 Aug. 27, 1991
Jones et al. (Jones) 5,077,309 Dec. 31, 1991
Misra et al. (Misra) 5,100,889 Mar. 31, 1992
Claims 1 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Misra in view of Ohtani.
Claims 1 through 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Misra in view of Jones.2
We have carefully considered the respective positions of
the appellants and the examiner and find ourselves in substantial
agreement with that of the appellants. Accordingly, we reverse
both rejections for the reasons set forth in the Brief.
According to the examiner:
The claimed compounds differ solely from those of
Misra in the specific cyclic moiety R -C-C-R
3 4
bridging the two claims. Misra has a 7-oxa
bicycloheptyl moiety. The claims recite numerous
rings including bornane, norbornane, bicyclooctane
and cycloalkyl. The secondary references, in
2We note that the Answer contains a typographical error in
the statement of the rejection. Answer, p. 2. The examiner has
inadvertently stated that claims 1-9 are rejected over Misra in
view of Jones, rather than claims 1-19. However, it is apparent
from the final Office action (Paper No. 6) that the examiner
intends the rejection to include all the claims. It is also
apparent from their Brief, that the appellants understood the
rejection to encompass all the claims. Brief, pp. 1 and 3.
Accordingly, for purposes of this appeal, we have considered the
issues as they apply to claims 1-19.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007