Appeal No. 94-2062
Application 07/870,841
does not include a secondary amino group. Thus, we conclude
that the examiner has not carried his burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness of appellants’ claimed
invention over the combined teachings of Alhede and Patchett.
We note that the claims in the parent application,
07/094,220, were finally rejected, as in the present case,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Alhede alone or in view of
Patchett, and that the rejection was affirmed by the Board
(Appeal No. 90-1038). Unlike the present case, the claims in
the parent case permit the diamino compound to include a
secondary amine, and do not require selectivity to one primary
amino group over a second primary amino group. Also, in the
parent case the Board relied upon U.S. 4,656,291 to Maryanoff
et al., which is not applied in the present case. Moreover,
in the parent case, the Board relied upon In re Durden, 763
F.2d 1406, 226 USPQ 359 (Fed. Cir. 1985), but did not have the
benefit of the court’s discussion of Durden in Ochiai and
Brouwer, supra. For these reasons, the Board’s decision in
the parent case is not controlling as to the present case.
DECISION
-7-7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007