Appeal No. 95-0882
Application No. 08/024,571
with the triazine carbamate and expect the same result as in the
instant invention, due to the same triazinyl carbamate core"
(answer, page 4). We cannot agree.
We appreciate that Riebel might have suggested to an artisan
with ordinary skill the desirability and thus the obviousness of
transforming the sulphonylureas of Fory into sulphonylurea salts
of the type defined by the appealed claims and disclosed by
Riebel. However, it is our perception that these applied
references would have suggested such a transformation via the
reaction mechanism taught by Riebel wherein the sulphonylureas
are reacted with alkaline metal hydroxides. On the reference
evidence of record before us, we discern no teaching or
suggestion, and the examiner points to none, which would have
motivated the artisan to transform the sulphonylureas of Fory
into sulphonylurea salts via the here claimed sulphonamide salt
reaction mechanism, which is not disclosed in either applied
reference, rather than via the reaction mechanism expressly
taught by Riebel.
In light of the foregoing, it is our determination that the
examiner's obviousness conclusion is based upon impermissible
hindsight derived from the appellant's own disclosure rather than
some teaching, suggestion or incentive derived from the applied
prior art. It follows that we cannot sustain the examiner's
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007