Appeal No. 95-0865
Application 08/08/007,950
expected in light of Searcey when the tetraalkylammonium salt
form of a purine is used, it would not make any difference to our
decision if no improved yield were obtained. The fact is
applicants do not describe any advantage vis-à-vis the prior art
for the claimed process in their specification. While an
advantage need not be described in order to establish
patentability, the absence of a stated problem and solution mean
that any cogent reason for combining the teachings of Searcey and
Slusarchyk suffices to establish obviousness. The improved
yields described by Searcey provide a cogent reason--it simply
cannot be argued in this day and age, consistent with common
sense, that organic chemists do not seek improved yields. Hence,
we believe that a person having ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to use Searcey's process in the purine art
and reasonably would have expected success in using Searcey's
process to add a moiety at the 9-position of the purine.
c. Claim 6
Claim 6 is rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Bisacchi, Slusarchyk, Searcey, Hagberg I, Ichikawa,
European Patent Application 0 358 154 (published March 14, 1990)
and Zahler, European Patent Application 0 458 363 (published
November 27, 1991).
- 28 -
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007