Appeal No. 95-2726
Application 07/994,477
doubly charged parent peptides would give superior results to
singly charged peptides.” Answer, p. 12, lines 18-21.
Although the examiner criticized some of the data set forth in
the declarations or Drs. Aebersold and Carr as being expected
in view of the applied prior art, he did not challenge the5
appellants’ response in the Reply Brief that he had 6
misinterpreted the sections of the references relied upon.
In view of the examiner’s admission that the appellants
have demonstrated unexpected results, and his failure to
contest the appellants’ interpretation of the applied prior
art, we find the rebuttal evidence to be persuasive.
Accordingly, we hold that the claimed subject matter would not
have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the application was filed.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
)
Teddy S. Gron )
5Answer, pp. 13-17.
6Reply Brief, pp. 2-4.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007