Appeal No. 95-0976
Application No. 07/936,558
Appellants argue that the requirement of the claimed
compounds and compositions with respect to the propanolamine
substituent at the Thr position is neither taught nor
suggested by the applied art. We agree with appellants in
this regard. This position being dispositive of the issue of
obviousness for each of the claims we will not reach the other
questions raised by appellants. We note in particular the
issue as to the claimed R position desmethyl variations (set5
forth in claims 2-12 herein) and point out that the
Supplemental Examiner's Answer (Paper #17) refers to
variations of echinocandins obtained from a particular
microbial source. However, appellants did not file any Reply
Brief to address this reasoning. We take no position on this
specific matter.
The examiner bears an initial burden of establishing that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed
invention to have been obvious at the time that it was made.
The evidence relied upon must support such a conclusion. As
was set forth in In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d
1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991):
Where claimed subject matter has been rejected
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007