Ex Parte MICHELOTTI et al - Page 6



             Appeal No. 2001-1946                                                              Page 6               
             Application No. 08/874,463                                                                             
                    the separate stereoisomers of the instant invention.  It is only in the                         
                    Specification of the instant Application that a method for producing                            
                    Appellants' claimed compounds is disclosed.  [Paper No. 10, page 7]                             
             The examiner's response, that the PTO "has already allowed claims 5-7 and 9-11                         
             directed to the particular processes for preparing [applicants'] stereoisomers" (Paper                 
             No. 11, page 5, lines 6 through 8) does not counter applicants' argument, and amounts                  
             to a non-sequitur.  As stated in In re Hoeksema, 399 F.2d 269, 274, 158 USPQ 596,                      
             601 (CCPA 1968):                                                                                       
                    if the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious a method for                     
                    making a claimed compound, at the time the invention was made, it may                           
                    not be legally concluded that the compound itself is in the possession of                       
                    the public.  In this context, we say that the absence of a known or obvious                     
                    process for making the claimed compounds overcomes a presumption                                
                    that the compounds are obvious, based on close relationships between                            
                    their structures and those of prior art compounds.  [Footnote omitted].                         
                    One further matter warrants attention.  As stated in 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth                    
             paragraph:                                                                                             
                    Subject to the following paragraph, a claim in dependent form shall                             
                    contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a                          
                    further limitation of the subject matter claimed.  A claim in dependent form                    
                    shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the                       
                    claim to which it refers.                                                                       
             Claim 4 in this application, which depends from claim 1, is manifestly improper because                
             it does not "specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed."  Rather, claim 4             
             removes the limitation of "an agronomically acceptable carrier" recited in claim 1.  Claim             
             4 defines a compound, i.e., "the compound of the composition of claim 1."  On return of                
             this application to the Examining Corps, we recommend that applicants and the                          
             examiner cooperate to correct the impropriety in dependant claim 4 noted in these                      
             remarks.                                                                                               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007