Appeal No. 2002-0795
Application No. 09/128,036
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Cody in view of Smith (Answer, page 3).2 We
reverse this rejection essentially for the reasons stated in the
Brief, Reply Brief, and those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
The examiner finds that Cody discloses methods of making a
variety of combinatorial libraries by methods of parallel
synthesis, including the reaction of scaffold compounds with
reactive functionalities and appendages with at least four
different moieties to form an intermediate library, followed by a
reduction to form the final library of compounds (Answer, page
4). The examiner recognizes that Cody lacks any disclosure or
teaching of using a mixture of reactants to react with the
scaffold compound and form the intermediate library (id.).
The examiner states that it was “well known in the art” to
carry out combinatorial syntheses using mixtures of reagents,
citing Smith as evidence of a teaching that synthesis of chemical
libraries may be accomplished by using a mixture of reactants
(i.e., nucleophiles and acid chlorides). Id. From these
2The final rejection of claim 1 under the second paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment
subsequent to the final rejection (see the amendment dated Dec.
8, 2000, Paper No. 12, and the Advisory Action dated Jan. 5,
2001, Paper No. 13).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007