Appeal No. 95-3117
Application 08/096,207
substituted-phenylcarbamoyl eserolines were comparatively far
less potent than N-phenylcarbamoyl eseroline, the closest
prior art compound. Applicants unexpectedly found that the
claimed compounds were at least markedly superior to N-
phenylcarbamoyl eseroline in their potencies toward human
erythrocyte AChE. Whether considering the compounds’
potencies toward electric eel or human erythrocyte AChE, we
find that persons having ordinary skill in the art would have
expected inferior results using the compounds of the claims on
appeal.
Not only does the examiner criticize the unexpected
character of appellants’ showing of AChE selectivity (Ans.,
p. 6), she belittles appellants’ argument that AChE
selectivity can patentably distinguish compounds active
against both AChE and BChE (Ans., pp. 5-6, bridging para.):
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.
We do not understand the examiner’s position. Yu I
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007