Appeal No 94-1046
Application 07/747,456
Mohindar S. Puar, a person with much experience interpreting NMR
and IR data, declares that the compound spectroscopically
described in Table II on page 14 of the specification is the same
compound represented by the formula now appearing in Claim 1
based on his review of the NMR, IR, and optical rotation data in
the specification (pages 2-3, bridging paragraph, of the
Declaration of Mohindar S. Puar, Paper No. 26, filed March 26,
1992). In essence, Puar declares that the data in the
specification necessarily describes the inventive compound
appellants now claimed. It is not clear why, but the examiner is
not satisfied.
The examiner does not contradict the Puar Declaration.
Rather, the examiner appears to be arguing that appellants have
not proven that formula 1 of Claim 1 is the “necessary and only
reasonable” formula to be given to the compound spectroscopically
described on page 14 of the specification. What is the problem?
The examiner answers that Puar’s declaration is not persuasive
“because appellants have not presented any objective evidence
showing that the said physicochemical data is not consistent with
the structural formula presented in the specification, as
originally filed” (Examiner’s Answer, paragraph bridging
pages 5-6). We are confused by these remarks.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007