Appeal No. 95-0976
Application No. 07/936,558
as obvious in view of a combination of prior
art references, a proper analysis under § 103
requires, inter alia, consideration of two
factors: (1) whether the prior art would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
art that they should make the claimed composition
or device, or carry out the claimed process; and
(2) whether the prior art would also have
revealed that in so making or carrying out,
those of ordinary skill would have a reasonable
expectation of success.
Considering the rejection at issue, with regard to
modification of the echinocandin antibiotics taught by Schmatz
and '310 Pat. by adding a propanolamine substituent at the Thr
position of the cyclic hexapeptidyl compounds, the examiner
has taken these positions: 1) that the '067 Pat. appears to
teach an alkylamine when n is zero; 2) that Schmatz teaches an
amine at the Thr position at col. 18, lines 37-38; 3) that it
would be well within the expected skill of a person in the art
to replace the amide i.e., glutamine in the Thr residue of
Schmatz with an amine i.e., a basic residue as Orn because Gln
and Orn residues belong to the same group of hydrophilic amino
acid residues and would reasonably be expected to exhibit
similar antibiotic activity; and 4) that attachment of said
amine group in the cyclohexapeptide echinocandin, albeit at
different position
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007