Appeal No. 1997-2195
Application 08/102,752
extremely unstable, it could not have been used to make
appellant’s pyrimidines. 3
The examiner argues that the Hamprecht declaration is not
persuasive because Lachhein’s halo(C -C )alkoxy group encompasses
1 4
appellant’s chlorodifluoromethoxy group (answer, page 7). The
examiner, however, does not address Hamprecht’s reasoning as to
why appellant’s trifluoromethoxy substituent could not be formed
using Lacchein’s method.
Because Hamprecht presents supported technical reasoning as
to why appellant’s pyrimidines could not have been made by one of
ordinary skill in the art from Lacchein’s disclosure, and the
examiner has presented no evidence or technical reasoning to the
contrary, we conclude that the examiner has not carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of
appellant’s claimed invention over Lacchein.
Rejection of claims 1, 6 and 7 over
Hamprecht ‘927 in view of Lacchein
3Appellant prepares his pyrimidines by a method which
does not use trifluoromethanol (specification, page 6, lines
10-14).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007