Ex parte VAZQUEZ et al. - Page 9


                  Appeal No.  2001-0598                                                              Page 9                   
                  Application No.  08/451,090                                                                                 
                         claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in                                       
                         structure will have similar properties. In re Gyurik, 596 F. 2d 1012,                                
                         1018, 201 USPQ 552, 557 (CCPA 1979); See In re May, 574 F. 2d                                        
                         1082, 1094, 197 USPQ 601, 611 (CCPA 1978); In re Hoch, 57                                            
                         CCPA 1292, 1296, 428 F. 2d 1341, 1344, 166 USPQ 406, 409                                             
                         (1970). … When prior art compounds essentially "bracketing" the                                      
                         claimed compounds in structural similarity are all known as                                          
                         pesticides, one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly be motivated to                           
                         make those claimed compounds in searching for new pesticides.                                        
                  Stated differently, “[i]n obviousness rejections based on close similarity in chemical                      
                  structure, the necessary motivation to make a claimed compound, and thus the                                
                  prima facie case of obviousness, rises from the expectation that compounds similar                          
                  in structure will have similar properties.”  In re Lalu, 747 F.2d 703, 706, 223 USPQ                        
                  1257, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 1984).  Therefore, we can not agree with the examiner’s                               
                  position (Final Rejection, page 8) that “[r]egardless of use, it is the compound                            
                  structures and compositions comprising these compound structures that are                                   
                  rendered obvious by the prior art teachings….”                                                              
                         Notwithstanding the fact that none of the types of structural similarity referred                    
                  to above are involved here, the examiner finds (Final Rejection, page 2) that ‘795                          
                  teaches “amino acid derivative compounds of generic formula [X-Z-NR2-CHR3-                                  
                  CHOH-(CH2)n-NR4-E-Y] … which are similar to those of the instant claim 1….”                                 
                  According to the examiner (Final Rejection, page 3) “the instant claims … read on                           
                  the broad genus of compounds and compositions taught by … [‘795].”                                          
                         While appellants do not dispute (Brief, pages 6-7) that their claimed                                
                  invention overlaps the genus of compounds set forth in ‘795, they point out (Brief,                         
                  page 8) that the subject matter of ‘795 is directed to rennin inhibitors and not to viral                   
                  protease inhibitors, a property of the claimed compounds.  Here, there is no                                






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007