Appeal No. 1997-3186
Application 08/362,529
established no actual difference in properties between claimed and prior art compounds based on
property disclosed for the claimed compound or on property taught for the prior art compound).
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the combined teachings of the Kennis references with
appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed
invention encompassed by appealed claims 1, 2, 6, 11 through 25, 30 and 33 would have been
obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended
under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007