Appeal No. 96-0676
Application 07/963,165
of this argument, the examiner relies upon Glennon (page 2),
which discloses that some compounds have a higher selectivity
and/or affinity for one 5-HT site subtype than for another
subtype. In the examiner’s view, appellants’ specification
(page 13) enables binding of appellants’ compounds only to 5-
HT sites, and not broadly to 5-HT sites (answer, page 4).1A 1
Appellants’ specification states (page 11, lines 13-16)
that the claimed compounds have particularly high affinity for
5-HT receptors, and provides guidance as to dosage amounts of
1
the compounds (page 15, lines 7-12). This disclosure
corresponds in scope to the recitation in appellants’ claims
6, 8 and 10. The examiner has not explained, and we do not
find, why Glennon would have indicated to one of ordinary
skill in the art that appellants’ claimed compound would not
be effective for binding to 5-HT receptors as required by
1
appellants’ claims 6, 8 and 10. Thus, the examiner has not
carried her burden of providing evidence or technical
reasoning which shows that the statements
in appellants’ specification regarding how to use their
claimed compounds are incorrect. Merely referring to an
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007