Appeal No. 96-0008
Application 08/243,428
addition, claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpat-entable over the combined teachings of Ohmori I
and Ohmori II .
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejections.
There is agreement between appellants and the examiner
that both Ohmori I and Ohmori II generically disclose epoxide
com-
pounds that embrace those presently claimed. Both references
disclose a formula that encompass the claimed epoxides (see
Ohmori I at col. 3, line 40 and Ohmori II at col. 3, lines
30-35). It can be seen from the formula disclosed in the
references that, when m is 0 and n is the number 2 to 4,
appel-lants' compounds result. However, appellants maintain
that the references are enabling only for compounds wherein n
is 1, i.e., the references do not describe a process for
making such compounds wherein n is 2 or greater, nor has the
examiner established that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have known how to make compounds conforming to the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007