Appeal No. 95-0976
Application No. 07/936,558
The issues raised by appellants have been fully
responded to under the GROUNDS OF REJECTION, supra.
We are constrained to reverse this rejection in light of
the failure of the examiner to present a rejection based on
prior art that outlines which teachings are being relied upon
to establish the examiner's position that the claims would
have been obvious over the cited prior art.
Despite the failure of the Examiner's Answer to present
an explanation of the grounds for the rejection under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103, we have reviewed the prosecution history and we will
discuss the reasons for rejection which appear at various
sites in the record. The presentation of the rejection in the
first instance appears in Paper #7 and includes the following
points on pages 7 and 8 of that office action:
Each of the compounds of Schmatz or the '310
Pat. differs from the claimed compound in that
the claimed compound is a quarternary (sic)
ammonium salt derivative of eichinocandin (sic).
The Belgian Pat. ('067) however teach (sic) a
quarternary (sic) ammonium salt derivative of
eichinocandin(sic). (Note page 1, formula 1
of the '067 Pat.). Accordingly, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to
incorporate a quarternary (sic) ammonium salt
to the compound of each of Schmatz or '310
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007