Appeal No. 1999-0106 3
Application No. 08/594,721
n equals 0, 1 or 2;
1 5 ’1 ’5 ”1 ”5
each of R to R , R to R and R to R , independently represents hydrogen,
alkyl, aralkyl, hydroxyalkyl, carboxyalkyl; alkenyl, alkynyl, cycloalkyl, cycloalkenyl,
3 4 ’3 ’4 ”3 ”4
aryl or heterocyclyl; and wherein R and R , R and R , R and R , may further
3 4 ’3’4 3
form together a ring; and wherein in the case that X=CR R and Y=CR R , R
’3 4 ’4 ’3 ’4
and R and/or R and R may form a ring and wherein in the case that Y=CR R
”3 ”4 ’3 ”3 ’4 ”4
and Z=CR R with n=1 or 2, R and R and/or R and R may form a ring.
THE REFERENCE OF RECORD
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon the following reference:
Katz 3,865,591 Feb. 11, 1975
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Katz.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and
the examiner, and agree with the appellants that the rejection of the claims under
§ 103(a) is not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any
other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability,” whether on the
grounds of anticipation or obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007