Appeal No. 2003-1106
Application No. 09/825,896
view of their identicalness. As the examiner correctly
points out on page 4 of the Answer, appellant’s
specification (page 4 at lines 20-22) discloses that the
instant compound has an affinity for FKBP-type
immunophillins and that it does not exert any significant
immunosuppressive activity. Hence, we agree with the
examiner that the functional aspects of the claims of
Steiner are met by the subject matter of the instant
claims. Appellants’ arguments do not show how the
functional aspects would not be met.
Appellants also do not provide convincing arguments
showing how one set of claims would be literally infringed,
while the other set of claims would not be literally
infringed.
III. Conclusion
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the
rejection.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007