Appeal No. 1996-1644
Application No. 07/933,147
Hence, we affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1,
4, 6 through 8, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As a final point, we note that the examiner inadvertently
fails to include claim 5 in the above § 103 rejections3. For
the reasons stated herein, we determine that the above § 103
rejections are also applicable to the subject matter of claim
5. Since we are extending the above § 103 rejections to claim
5 for the first time, we will treat this extension as setting
forth new grounds of rejection.
In addition to affirming the examiner's rejection of one
or more claims, this decision contains a new ground of
rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec.
1, 1997, by final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53131, 53197 (Oct.
3 Claim 6, which has been rejected by the examiner,
includes all of the limitations of claim 5 since claim 6 is
dependent on claim 5. Claim 6 specifies amine compounds
embraced by the generic amine compounds recited in claim 5.
As indicated supra, the examiner states, and appellants do not
dispute, that the specific amine compounds recited in claim 6
are taught by Cozzette or Ueno. As also indicated supra, we
observe that Suzuki also teaches amine compounds which are
embraced by claim 5. Further, we note that appellants
acknowledge that the selection of a particular functional
group, which is inclusive of the claimed amine compound, is
well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art.
See Brief, pages 3-4.
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007