Appeal No. 95-3640
Application 08/147,742
evidence. Mere unsupported speculation is not a sufficient
basis for a rejection. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017,
154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057
(1968); In re Sporck, 301 F.2d 686, 690, 133 USPQ 360, 364
(CCPA 1962).
The examiner argues that it would have been prima facie
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
compounds disclosed in the references to obtain a composition
useful for the same purpose, i.e., antiviral agent (answer,
page 7). This argument is not persuasive because the examiner
has not shown that the individual components were known in the
art to be effective for killing rhinoviruses. Thus, it is not
apparent why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
expected them to be effective in combination against
rhinoviruses.
For the following reasons, we find that the examiner has
not set forth a factual basis which is sufficient to support a
conclusion of obviousness of the invention recited in any of
appellants’ claims. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
-10-10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007