Appeal No. 1996-1959
Application No. 07/946,546
the 4-position hydroxyl is up rather than down, where as in mannose, the 2-
position hydroxyl is up rather than down, with all of the other hydroxyls
maintaining the their same configurations relative to the plane of the
ring…..by using ring structural formulas, workers of less than ordinary skill in
the art can know the identity of a sugar, and one can identify a single sugar
from among the 32 possible optical and anomeric isomers for a given
C6H12O6 sugar.
Appellants argue that the compound taught by Schreiner and Schrell differs from the
compound of claim 6 with respect to the position of the substituent at a number of
carbon atoms on the ring. According to the Appellants, just as glucose is different
from galactose and mannose (by virtue of the positioning of the hydroxyl
substituents), so too is the claimed compound different from that taught by the cited
art.
The Examiner does not come to grips with Appellants’ argument, either in the
Answer or in the Supplemental Answer. Rather, the Examiner steadfastly maintains
her position that the compound of the claim and that of the prior art are the same.
The Examiner appears to ignore Appellants’ exhibits, documenting conventional
numbering and nomenclature for carbohydrates (sugars, in particular). In the face of
Appellants’ detailed comparison between the claimed compound and the prior art
compound, including a discussion on the fundamentals of carbohydrate structure
and nomenclature, we find that the Examiner’s position is untenable.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007