Appeal No. 2002-0442 Page 2
Application No. 09/671,854
The examiner relies on the following prior art reference:
Weinstock et al. (Weinstock) 3,419,572 Dec. 31, 1968
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Weinstock.
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation and review of the
following materials: (1) the instant specification, including claim 3; (2) applicant's Appeal
Brief (Paper No. 9) and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 11); (3) the Examiner's Answer
(Paper No. 10); and the above-cited prior art reference.
On consideration of the record, including the above-listed materials, we reverse
the examiner's prior art rejection. We shall not belabor the record with extended
commentary in this case, because we agree with the position succinctly stated in
applicant's briefs. For the reasons spelled out in the Appeal Brief (Paper No. 9) and the
Reply Brief (Paper No. 11), Weinstock constitutes insufficient evidence to support a
conclusion of obviousness of the compound recited in claim 3.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007