B. Discussion
Resolution of the appeal does not require an extended
discussion. Applicants explicitly acknowledged that for the
purpose of the appeal all the claims stand or fall together
as to both rejections on appeal. Pursuant to Rule 192, we
therefore elect to consider the broadest and only independent
claim--Claim 37. In our view, both the PCT application and
Hamilton describe compositions within the scope of Claim 37.
Hence, those claims are not patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
See, e.g., In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 646
(CCPA 1974) (anticipation is epitome of obviousness).
Applicants make only one argument on appeal, viz., that
neither prior art reference describes an effective amount of a
heterocyclic compound. However, we have found that the examiner
had a complete answer to that argument pointing to specific
reference to a portions of the prior art. See Findings 21
and 23.
We are at a loss to understand why such a half-hearted
effort has been made by applicants in connection with this
appeal. Apart from the fact that applicants do not seem to
really care about the outcome here, the need to have considered
the appeal by the examiner and this board has not been what can
be described as an efficient use of resources for the
administration of appellate justice within the Patent and
Trademark Office.
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007