Appeal No. 96-0008
Application 08/243,428
patents did not enable the synthesis of appellants' claimed
compounds, the Board sustained the examiner's rejection
because "appellants have not proffered any objective evidence
in
the form of a declaration or an affidavit which establishes
that the reactions disclosed by Ohmori do not, in fact, result
in the disclosed compounds." (page 4 of the decision). In2
addition, the Board found that the claimed compound would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of
the known selective epoxidation taught by S. Rozen et al.,
cited by appellants at page 2 of the present specification.
Appellants now come before us with declaration evidence
and objective evidence from scientific literature to support
their contention that the Ohmori patents do not provide an
enabling disclosure for compounds within the scope of the
appealed claims, i.e., where n is 2 thru 10.
Appealed claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)
as being anticipated by either Ohmori I or Ohmori II. In
The declaration attached to the reply brief in the grandparent2
application was not entered by the examiner, and therefore, not before the
Board.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007