Appeal No. 96-2721
Application No. 08/148,764
case of obviousness for the claimed subject matter.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejections.
We consider first the rejection of the appealed claims
over Kadin taken alone. For the reasons set forth at pages 6-
8 of appellants' Brief, we find that Kadin fails to support a
prima facie case of obviousness for the claimed compounds.
Suffice it to say that the examiner recognizes that Kadin
discloses hydrogen or alkyl groups having one to three carbon
atoms as the substituent corresponding to appellants' A , but1
not the claimed substituents, and we concur with appellants
that the examiner's reliance on Kadin's substituent X for the
equivalency of hydrogen and halogen substituents is misplaced.
Kadin's teaching of equivalency of hydrogen and halogen
substituents at the X position does not establish the
equivalency of such substituents at Kadin's R* position.
Concerning the examiner's rejection over Kadin in view of
Young, we agree with appellants that the compounds of Kadin
and Young are not sufficiently similar in chemical structure
to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the R*
substituents of Kadin in the manner proposed by the examiner
to arrive at the claimed compounds. To wit, the bonding
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007