Appeal No. 1996-0721
Application No. 08/036,640
formula described in the Korger reference. Nor has the
examiner explained why the above disclosures of McLamore and
Lucius would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
employ the claimed halophenyl radical in the general formula
described in the Korger reference.
Even were we to read R’ in McLamore as including all of
the species described at page 2 therein (which we do not) as
appears to be suggested by the examiner (Answer, page 4), we
determine that McLamore would not have suggested the
employment of the claimed halophenyl radical as R of the
1
general formula described in the Korger reference.
Specifically, the Ruschig reference relied on by appellants,
like Korger, teaches preference for (CH) C H as R of then 6 5 1
general formula described in Korger for lowering blood sugar.
See page 5, together with Brief, page 6. In addition, the
Ruschig reference teaches that the use of a substituted or
unsubstituted phenyl radical as R of the general formula
1
described in Korger would render the formula ineffective for
lowering blood sugar and render the formula extremely toxic
for humans. See Brief, page 6, together with Ruschig, pages 4
and 5. Thus, we agree with appellants that one of ordinary
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007