Appeal No. 96-0769
Application No. 08/203,386
from the top of the table of page 3 of UK’567 is an "adjacent
homolog" of appellants’ claim 4 compound, since this prior art
compond, N,N-diethylaminoethyl 4-methylphenethyl ether,
differs from appellants’ claim 4 compound only by the presence
of an additional CH moiety between the phenyl group and the
2
oxy moiety in the ether compound. In any event, an assuming
for purposes of argument that the compound is not a homolog of
appellant's claim 4 compound, we point out that in an
obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical
structure, the name used to designate the relationship between
the related compounds (e.g.,"adjacent homolog") is not
necessarily controlling. "It is the closeness of that
relationship which is indicative of the obviousness or
unobviousness of the new compound." In re Druey, 319 F.2d
237, 240, 138 USPQ 39, 41 (CCPA 1963). Here, we agree with
the examiner that one skilled in the art would have been
motivated to make the appellants' claim 4 compound in the
expectation that this compound would have similar properties
to the prior art compound. That appellants have found that
the claimed compound has properties which make it useful for a
purpose not expressly disclosed for the prior art compond is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007