Appeal No. 2003-0905
Application No. 09/781,426
examiner’s rejection is well-founded for the reasons set forth
below.
On pages 3 through 4 of the Answer, the examiner states
that claims 1 through 18 of Steiner renders the instant claims
obvious because (1) the claims of Steiner are directed to a
method comprising administering “N-linked sulfonamide of a
heterocyclic thioester” and (2) the instant claims are directed
to a method comprising administering a heterocyclic nitrogen-
containing compound which has an “N-linked sulfone substituent
attached to the heterocyclic ring and a thioester substituent
attached to the heterocyclic ring.”
The examiner also refers to claims 3, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14,
16, 17 and 18 of Steiner and states that these claims show that
the compound “includes heterocyclic compounds having the same
substituents” of the instant method.
On pages 3 through 5 of the Brief, appellants argue that
“overlap differs from double patenting.”
In response, on page 4 of the Answer, the examiner is
unpersuaded because “the compound of both methods include [sic,
includes] heterocyclic compounds that are the same when an N-
linked sulfone substituents is attached to the heterocyclic ring
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007