Appeal No. 2003-0919 Page 3
Application No. 09/463,097
14. In that claim, applicants do not recite the $-crystal form of the methanesulfonic acid
addition salt of the illustrated compound. Manifestly, the methanesulfonic acid addition
salt is intended. (Appeal Brief, Paper No. 16, page 5, second full paragraph).
The Prior Art Reference
The prior art reference relied on by the examiner is:
Zimmermann 5,521,184 May 28, 1996
The Rejections
Claims 1, 4 through 8, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as not particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter
which applicants regard as their invention. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as based on a non-enabling disclosure. Finally, claims 1 through
8, 10, and 13 through 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or,
in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zimmermann.
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. 16) and the Reply Brief
(Paper No. 18); (3) the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 17); and (4) the above-cited
Zimmermann patent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007