Appeal No. 97-1999
Application 07/390,745
para., concluding sentence). This, in our view, would not
have suggested the use of ACPC for treating
neuropsychopharmacological disorders. Rather, it is an
invitation to experiment. Thus, we also find, based on this
evidence, that persons having ordinary skill in the art
reasonably could not have expected success using ACPC or its
esters to treat neuropsychopharmacological disorders.
Therefore, even if we assume, arguendo, that the applied prior
art teachings would have suggested the claimed method to
persons having ordinary skill in the art, we find that they
would not have had a reasonable expectation of successfully
treating neuropsychopharmacological disorders using the
compounds described therein. Accordingly, we are obliged to
reverse the examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in
view of the combined teachings of Nadler, Marvizon, Ross,
Robinson, and Foster.
3. Other issues
Consistent with the findings and conclusions in our
Discussion, we find from the evidence and arguments of record
that the art to which the subject matter claimed in this case
pertains, is highly unpredictable. We also find that the
specification filed in support of the claims on appeal
- 15 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007