Ex parte RIEGER et al. - Page 7

          Appeal No. 1995-5117                                                        
          Application No. 08/067,154                                                  

          6) overlap those defined by the formula recited by independent              
          claims 10 and 15.  It is true that the substituent choices                  
          offered by patentee for his formula IIc are larger in scope                 
          than those offered by the appellants via independent claims 10              
          and 15.  Nevertheless, as explained previously, each of the                 
          choices offered by Weber would have been obvious to an artisan              
          with ordinary skill.  Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., id.              
          Moreover, as also previously explained, the mere fact that the              
          claims under consideration recite characteristics or                        
          properties not appreciated by Weber does not forestall a                    
          conclusion of prima facie obviousness.  In re May, id. and In               
          re Spada, id.                                                               
               For these reasons, we conclude that the Weber reference                
          evidence adduced by the examiner establishes a prima facie                  
          case of obviousness with respect to the here rejected claims.               
          In rebuttal of this prima facie case, the appellants proffer                
          the Rieger declaration of record as evidence of unexpected                  
          results.  In this declaration, at least one inventive compound              
          is compared with a number of other compounds including 4                    


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007