Appeal No. 1997-3306
Application No. 08/234,073
construed broadly within its spirit and scope as set out in
the accompanying claims” (col. 23, lines 45-49). Note is
made of the fact that at page 31, lines 17-19, applicants
explicitly teach that the instant invention “is in no way
limited” to the specific examples. In view of the above,
the conclusion is drawn that the specific combination and
concentration of compounds would have been obvious through
routine experimentation and optimization.
We do not agree with the examiner that the specific
combination and concentration of compounds would have been
obvious through routine experimentation and optimization.
Although choosing a compound or concentration of a
compound by itself can involve routine experimentation when
attempting to optimize a specific characteristic or
property of an invention, the examiner has not indicated
specifically what characteristic or property of Ishiwata’s
invention it is that the routineer would have found it
obvious to optimize by experimentation and why he would
have done so, and how such experimentation would have
resulted in the “specific combination and concentration of
compounds” to which he makes reference at page 4, line 8,
of the final rejection. Contrary to the examiner’s
statement at page 4, lines 10-13, of the final rejection,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007