Appeal No. 95-0576
Application 08/035,546
broadly describes, for purposes of resolving the merits of this
case, appears to be the difference between homologous
substituents at the 25-position. GB’s compounds have an
“isopropylene group substituted by methyl, ethyl, or isopropyl”
at the 25-position (GB, Abstract, last sentence). We understand
the examiner to find that GB’s compounds with an isopropylene
group substituted by methyl, ethyl, or isopropyl at the 25-
position are “closely analogous” to the compounds provisionally
excluded from appellants’ claims and both “closely analogous” and
homologous to the compounds appellants otherwise claim which have
an “alpha-branched . . . C -C alkenyl group” at the
3 8
corresponding 25-position.
3. Discussion
The examiner portrays the prima facie case of obviousness of
the compounds appellants claim in view of Mrozik’s teaching as
follows (Examiner’s Answer, page 3):
Since an alpha-branched group having 5 carbon atoms
is a next higher homologue of a sec-butyl group, it
would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
skill in the art at the time the instant invention
was made to substitute alpha-branched alkyl group
having 5 carbon atoms for the sec-butyl group on the
compounds disclosed by Mrozik because the results
obtained therefrom would have been expected i.e. a
person having ordinary skill in the art at the time
the instant invention was made would have been motivated
to substitute a 5-carbon alkyl for a 4-carbon alkyl on
a compound disclosed by Mrozik with the expectation of
getting a compound possessing antiparasitic activity.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007