Appeal No. 96-0769
Application No. 08/203,386
appealed claims 2 and 3. The examiner's finding in the answer
at page 4 that UK'567 describes homologs of the compounds of
respective claims 2 and 3 is erroneous. In our view, the
factual basis established from the disclosures in UK'567 is
inadequate to support the examiner's obviousness rejection of
these claims. We, therefore, reverse the rejection of claims
2 and 3..
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
MICHAEL SOFOCLEOUS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007