Appeal No. 94-3007
Application 07/809,039
the Peptide,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, Volume
104, page 4293 (1982)(attached to Paper No. 16, filed November
8, 1991) and by the Declaration Under 37 CFR § 1.132 by Manuel
Debono dated September 1, 1992 (Paper No. 21). The examiner
does not contradict appellants’ evidence.
The examiner suggests, however, that the history of
vancomycin is irrelevant to the patentability of the
patentably distinct compounds presently claimed in view of
Debono’s teaching. We disagree. We find that the reported
comparisons of the antibacterial activities of vancomycin to
derivatives thereof, which differ by one amino acid fragment
of their cyclic peptide rings, reasonably would have suggested
to persons having ordinary skill in the art that similar
changes in the structure of the cyclic peptide rings of other
known antibacterial agents would also be likely to affect the
antibacterial activity they exhibit. The evidence to which
the examiner points carries far less weight than the evidence
to which appellants point because it does not focus on the
basic difference between the ring structures of the prior art
compounds and the ring structures of the cyclic peptide
compounds here claimed.
Having considered and weighed all of the evidence
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007