Appeal No. 1997-2182 Application 08/137,443 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 statute as said statute has been interpreted by our reviewing courts. Accordingly, for reasons expressed fully below, we shall reverse the examiner's stated rejection. 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 20) are directed solely to a specific group of compounds. The specific group 1 2 of compounds is defined solely by the substitutents R , R and R located at the various positions found on the compound3 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007