Appeal No. 98-0573
Application 08/418,055
08/417,628 and over claims 36, 37 and 41-45 of copending
Application 08/417,625. Claims 36-42 also stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lilly.
OPINION
Appellants do not challenge the obviousness-type double
patenting rejections. We therefore summarily affirm these
rejections. As for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we
have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by
appellants and the examiner and agree with appellants that
this rejection is not well founded. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner argues that Lilly teaches (page 2, lines 30-
31) that the fermentation broth contains “other antibiotic
substances” and that since these substances have been found to
include clavulanates, and clavulanates have been identified as
antibiotics, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to purify the compounds recited in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007