Appeal No. 1997-1965
Application No. 08/466,482
THE REJECTION
Claims 18 - 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness,
the examiner relies on Raeymaekers, Venkataratnam, Gevaert, Beilstein, Aikawa, and
Harsányi.
DELIBERATIONS
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation and review of the following
materials: (1) the instant specification, including all of the claims on appeal; (2) applicants’
appeal brief and reply brief; (3) the examiner’s answer and the communication mailed by the
examiner March 19, 1997; and (4) the above-cited prior art references.
On consideration of the record, including the above-listed materials, we reverse the
examiner’s rejection.
DISCUSSION
The examiner argues that each primary reference (Raeymaekers, Venkataratnam,
Gevaert, and Beilstein) discloses compounds fully meeting compounds I or II recited in
claims 18 through 20; that the combined disclosures of these primary references constitute
a “generic class of compounds;” and that the “claimed compounds” fall within the generic
class of compounds disclosed by the references. Accordingly, the examiner concludes that
a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found the “claimed compounds” prima
facie obvious (examiner’s answer, paragraph bridging pages 7 and 8). We disagree.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007