Appeal No. 1997-1767
Application No. 08/442,959
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by CA ‘389; and
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over CA ‘566.
We have carefully reviewed the entire record, including
all of the arguments and evidence presented by the examiner
and by the appellants. Our review leads us to conclude that
the aforementioned rejections are not well founded.
Accordingly, we reverse.2
OPINION
We consider first the examiner’s rejection under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over CA ‘389. The examiner states that CA ‘389
discloses “the keto form” of the appellants’ claimed compound
(answer, page 3). According to the examiner, “the enol form”
(i.e., the appellants’ claimed compound) exists inherently
2We hasten to point out that our decision is confined to
the rejections based solely on the teachings of CA ‘389 and
CA ‘566, not the underlying patent documents identified
therein.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007