Appeal No. 1996-2321
Application No. 08/137,228
All of the claims on appeal stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Challis (Answer, page 2). We
reverse this rejection for reasons which follow.
OPINION
In the rejection of the claims on appeal, the examiner
finds that “Challis teaches that amides can be N-alkylated
with alcohols in the presence of trace amounts of mineral
acid. Appellants claim the N-alkylation of an amide with an
acid.” (Answer, paragraph bridging pages 2-3). Although the
examiner recognizes that the amide starting material and N-
alkylated product differ from those taught by Challis, the
examiner concludes that the application of an “old process”
using different, yet analogous, reactants “with nothing more
than expected results ensuing is obvious,” citing In re
Durden (Answer, page 3).3
However, we agree with appellants’ arguments on pages 5-7
of the Brief that the examiner’s factual findings are in error
since Challis only relates to the alkylation of “alkyl amides”
3763 F.2d 1406, 226 USPQ 359 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007