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. 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007