Appeal No. 2002-0798 Page 3
Application No. 09/107,688
the combined disclosures of Rutter and Joran; and (4) claims 13, 23 through 26, 29,
and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as based on a non-enabling disclosure.
Deliberations
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation and review of the
following materials: (1) the instant specification, including Figures 1, 2, and 3, and all of
the claims on appeal; (2) applicants' Appeal Brief (Paper No. 15) and the Reply Brief
(Paper No. 17); (3) the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 16); (4) the above-cited prior art
references; and (5) U.S. Patent No. 5,780,241 issued July 14, 1998, to Phillip Dan
Cook based on parent Application 08/744,020 filed November 5, 1996.
On consideration of the record, including the above-listed materials, we reverse
the examiner's rejections.
Sections 102 and 103
In the method of claims 13, 23, and 26, after the first step has been completed,
each reaction product in the mixture may be characterized as having a scaffold moiety
and a chemical reactive compound moiety. The second step of independent claim 13
specifically requires "transforming said scaffold moiety in said reaction products"
(emphasis added).
We next invite attention to the Rutter patent. According to the examiner, the
scaffold moiety in applicants' claims "reads on" the Gly-derivatized resin disclosed by
Rutter in column 9, lines 61 and 62; and the mixture of chemical reactive compounds in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007