Appeal No. 1996-0332
Application No. 08/075,017
The Ishida Declaration (Paper No. 10), the only
declaration of record before us for consideration, is not
demonstrative of unexpected results for the reasons suggested
in the examiner’s answer and final rejection. To wit, the
results showing that some compounds (Compound Nos. 2 and 6)
within the scope of the Ishida disclosure are effective
against black grass and downy brome, whereas others (Compounds
A and B) are not, is not dispositive especially considering
the significant differences between those compounds in terms
of chemical structure. In other words, the compounds chosen
for comparison purposes are not the closest prior art
compounds in the sense that there appear to be other specific
compounds within the ambit of the Ishida disclosure which are
more closely related structurally to the compound of
appellants’ claim, e.g., Ishida compounds 52 and 67.
Moreover, the examiner’s analysis of the Ishida
Declaration of record stands unrebutted. In this regard, we
note that appellants’ brief does not refer to any declaration;
and the only declaration discussed in appellants’ reply brief
does not appear to correspond to the Ishida declaration of
record but, rather, to an Ishida declaration which we have
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007