Appeal No. 1997-2195
Application 08/102,752
an explanation or explained why, even if one of ordinary skill in
the art had been motivated by Hamprecht ‘927 to form a
trifluoromethoxy substituent, the reference would have enabled
such a person to do so. The examiner, therefore, has not carried
the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of
appellant’s claimed process over Hamprecht ‘927.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 2-5 under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 2-5 of
each of Hamprecht ‘143 and Hamprecht ‘332 are affirmed. The
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 1 over Lachhein,
claims 1, 6 and 7 over Hamprecht ‘927 in view of Lacchein,
claims 1, 6 and 7 over Meyer, and claims 2-5 over Hamprecht ‘927,
are reversed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007