Patent Interference No. 103,548
Furthermore, FR '797's monohydroxyindolines, like Lagrange's claimed
dihydroxyindolines, perform the function as hair dyes.
Accordingly, Lagrange's two arguments attacking the relevance of FR '797 to the
claimed indolines are unpersuasive. FR '797 is analogous prior art and, therefore, the
interchangeability suggested to exist between each of FR '797's teaching of C0 and C2
alkyl N-substituted monohydroxyindolines suggests a comparable interchangeability
would exist between Konrad's indolines and Lagrange's indolines.
Lagrange's arguments to the contrary having been addressed, we conclude that,
to one with ordinary skill in the art Lagrange's compositions and dyeing methods
involving C2-C4 alkyl N-substituted indolines would have been prima facie obvious over
Konrad's claimed to compositions and dyeing methods involving C0-C1 alkyl N-
substituted indolines. Accordingly, we disagree with Lagrange's position33 and find
instead that Lagrange has not shown that its claims would not have been prima facie
obvious over Konrad's claims designated as corresponding to the counts in view of
Grollier and FR '797. Therefore, absent a showing of unexpected results, Lagrange's
claimed C2-C4 alkyl N-substituted indolines would have been obvious over Konrad's
claims designated as corresponding to the counts in view of the cited prior art to one
with ordinary skill in the art.
33 Lagrange (LB 29) takes the position that:
The indolines of Konrad and French '797, and the indoles of Grollier '500, do not make the N-(C2-
C4)alkyl-5,6-dihydroxyindolines of Lagrange obvious. Konrad only claims the N-methyl compound
as part of a subgenus. Grollier '500 does not specifically disclose an N-substituted indole. And
French '797 relates to monohydroxyindolines. Moreover, any prima facie case of obviousness has
been effectively rebutted by Lagrange.
30
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007