Appeal No. 1996-0721
Application No. 08/036,640
skill in the art would have been led away from substituting
the claimed halophenyl for (CH) C H of the generic formula
n 65
described in Korger.
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 14 through 26 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Korger, McLamore
and Lucius.
As a final point, we note that U.S. Patent 2,979,437,
Chemical Abstracts, Farmaco. Ed. Sci. and Bulletin De La
Societe Chimique referred to at page 2 of the specification
appear to fully describe compounds which are embraced by the
claimed formula. Upon return of this application, the
examiner is to determine whether they affect the patentability
of the claimed subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
REVERSED
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007