Appeal No. 1996-3017 Application No. 08/851,810 Accordingly, appealed claims 3, 4, 7-10, 12, 13 and 17-20 stand or fall together with the independent claim upon which they depend. Appealed claims 2-5, 12, 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kosuge, Rizzi, Bell and Langdon in view of Bonzom and Akiyama. Claims 6-10, 13, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kosuge, Rizzi, Bell and Langdon in view of Evans, Weissberger and Akiyama. We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant's arguments for patentability. However, inasmuch as we find that the examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness is supported by the factual findings made by the examiner, we will sustain the examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. We consider first the examiner's rejection of claims 2-5, 12, 17 and 18. There is no dispute that Kosuge, Rizzi, Bell and Langdon, the primary references, disclose processes for preparing appellant's product, an alkyl-pyrazine, by reacting appellant's reactants in an aqueous medium. The primary references do not disclose isolating the product from the -4-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007