Appeal No. 95-3117
Application 08/096,207
that the combined teachings of the applied prior art
references establish a case of prima facie obviousness of the
subject
matter of Claims 23, 24, 28, 29, 34, 35, and 36 and the
separately considered subject matter of Claims 37, 43, and 46
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The presumption reasonably appears
to be justified in light of the combined prior art teachings
of active N-phenylcarbamoyl eseroline and substituted
phenylcarbamoyl eserolines in Yu I (Yu I, p. 128, Table 1,
Nos. 3, 4, and 5), comparative activities for eserolines and
noreserolines in Yu II (Yu II, p. 2297, Table I), and the
activity of related “aryl” carbamates and compositions
therewith wherein “aryl” may be “phenyl, o-tolyl, m-
methoxyphenyl, etc.” reported by Glamkowski (Glamkowski, col.
2, l. 26-27). However, we reverse the examiner’s rejections
based on our findings that the evidence of record shows
unexpected properties for the three specific compounds
appellants claim on appeal relative to the closest prior art
active compounds, namely N-phenylcarbamoyl,
methoxyphenylcarbamoyl, and chlorophenylcarbamoyl eserolines.
The examiner was not persuaded by the comparative results
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007