Appeal No. 95-3117
Application 08/096,207
reported in Table 2 in the specification for the following
reasons (Examiner’s Answer, pp. 5-6):
Appellant’s [sic] arguments regarding the data of
Table 1 [of Yu I] have been carefully considered. The
arguments
focus on the selectivity of the claimed compounds, urging
that such selectivity is not found in the compounds of
the
prior art. However, the prior art compounds are seen to
possess selectivity also. For example, Yu (I) compound 3
is selective for AChE. Because it is known in the art
that such compounds may selectively inhibit one type of
cholinesterase over another, such selectivity does not
render the instant compounds patentable over the prior
art.
Further, the differences in such selectivity are not seen
to
be as great as appellant urges. Given the margins of
error
involved, the differences in selectivity between compound
D’
of Yu [(Compound “D’ phenserine” in appellants’ Table 2
on
page 26 of the specification corresponds to compound No.
3
N-phenylcarbamoyl eseroline in Table 1 of Yu I).] and
compound 1 herein may be as little as 6.1 nmol/318 nmol,
for AChE and BChE inhibiting activity, respectively.
Likewise, the differences are 0.8 nmol/43 nmol for
compound
11 versus compound D’ of Yu. In fact, given the margin
of
error, the BChE inhibition of compound 11 is within the
range of compound D’. Thus, the differences are not
deemed
to be as great as to be unexpected.
As regards the data presented to rebut the
obviousness
raised by the art with respect to compound 14, the data
of Table 2 has been considered to be insufficient. The
difference in activity between the two comounds [sic] is
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007