Appeal No. 1997-2167
Application 08/137,444
including the well-argued positions taken by both the examiner
and the appellants. We find, however, that the examiner has
failed to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability under
the relevant statutes as the statutes have been interpreted by
our reviewing courts. Accordingly, for reasons expressed
fully below, we shall reverse each of the examiner's stated
rejections.
THE CLAIMS
Our analysis of the issues before us begins with a
determination of the scope and content of what appellants
claim as their invention. As claims pending in a yet to be
patented application, we must give the claims their broadest,
reasonable interpretation, consistent with appellants'
disclosure as said disclosure would have been understood by a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time appellants
made their invention, but without importing limitations from
the specification into the claims for the purpose of narrowing
the scope of the claims.
The compound claims (claims 1 through 46 and 52) are
directed solely to a specific group of compounds. The
specific group of compounds is defined solely by the
substitutents R , R and R located at the various positions1 2 3
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007