Appeal No. 95-3117
Application 08/096,207
which might lead away from the claimed invention. . . .
Evidence that supports, rather than negates,
patentability
must be fairly considered.
We revisit the teaching of Yu I, aside from the results
appellants alone disclose, and consider Yu’s own analysis
of the results he discloses. “Both the suggestion and the
expectation of success must be founded in the prior art, not
in the applicant’s disclosure.” Id. at 473, 5 USPQ2d at 1531.
Yu I concludes, based on test results reported for active
(-)-physostigmine, N-phenylcarbamoyl eseroline,
benzylcarbamoyl eseroline, methoxyphenylcarbamoyl eseroline,
and chlorophenyl-carbamoyl eseroline (Yu I, p. 128, Table 1,
Nos. 2, 3, 8, 4,
and 5) that (Yu I, p. 128, col. 2, to p. 129, col. 2, bridging
para.; emphasis added):
None of the (-)-physostigmine derivatives studied
was
as potent against electric eel AChE as (-)-physostigmine
itself. . . . [L]engthening of the carbamoyl side chain
does not greatly reduce the ability of the carbonyl group
to interact with the esteratic site of electric eel AChE.
However, the addition of either N-phenyl or benzyl group
reduces the potency of the resulting compounds (N-phenyl-
carbamoyl eseroline (3) and benzylcarbamoyl eseroline
(8))
much more . . . indicating that the bulk of these groups
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007