Appeal No. 2003-1722 Page 11
Application No. 09/041,343
described by Lebl falls within Appellants’ pending claims. Therefore, Lebl cannot
anticipate Appellants’ claims.” Id., page 19.
Once again, we agree with Appellants. The examiner has not shown that
Lebl discloses a receptor compound meeting all the limitations of the instant
claims. At best, the examiner has pointed to general disclosures in the reference
that might encompass compounds having one of the templates recited in the
claims and that could have oligomers made up of at least three monomers of the
recited subunits. See, e.g., the Examiner’s Answer, pages 10-12. The examiner
has not, however, pointed to any specific compound that meets the limitations of
a “synthetic receptor” recited in claim 112. Therefore, the examiner has not
shown that Lebl anticipates the instant claims. The rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007