Appeal No. 94-3007
Application 07/809,039
and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Debono.
For the reasons stated with regard to the Section 103
rejection, we also reverse the examiner’s rejection of Claims
3, 5-7, 12, 14-16, 19, 22, 23, 25-27, 30 and 31 for
obviousness-type double patenting in view of the compounds
Debono claims. Debono claims A-21978C cyclic peptide
derivatives which, given the proviso in Debono’s Claim 1 which
requires an aminoacyl or
N-alkanoylaminoacyl group in the derivatives, are even less
structurally similar to the cyclic peptides of the claims on
appeal than are the original A-21978C cyclic peptides
themselves.
Conclusion
We reverse the examiner’s rejections of Claims 3, 5-7,
12, 14-16, 19, 22, 23, 25-27, 30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
in view of Debono’s teaching and for obviousness-type double
patenting of the compounds Debono claims.
REVERSED
- 14 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007