Patent Interference No. 103,548
lead us to conclude that Konrad reasonably would have suggested C1 alkyl N-
substituted indoline to one of ordinary skill in the art and therefore renders obvious any
claim that might be directed to it32. Moreover, Lagrange admits that the C1 alkyl N-
substituted indoline is old in the art (LB 20, footnote 11). Accordingly, there is no issue
about whether a prima facie case of obviousness would exist for claims directed to C1
alkyl N-substituted indoline. The only issue is whether a prima facie case of
obviousness would exist for the homologous C2-C4 alkyl N-substituted compounds.
Grollier teaches N-hydrogen and C1-C5 N-substituted indoles. We agree with
Lagrange that "Grollier '500 does not specifically disclose an N-substituted indole" (LB
32). However, Grollier does disclose various alternative substituents attached to the N-
atom on the indole structure. This suggests that the substituents are interchangeable. In
view of the fact that indoles and indolines have similar, albeit different, structures, and
teaches that indoles, like indolines, are useful in hair-dyeing. Grollier's teaching of C0-C5
N-substituted indoles, and the concomitant suggestion of interchangeability between
the substituents, would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to also view the C0-C4 N-
substituents on indolines as interchangeable.
We note that Lagrange (LB 32) disputes the applicability of Grollier's indoles to
Lagrange's indolines, not with respect to the view, suggested by Grollier, that the C0-C4
N-substituents on the indolines are interchangeable, but on the ground that Grollier's
hydrogen. Although such a species is included in the broad genus of claim 1, claim 7 is directed only to
three methyl species.
26
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007