Appeal No. 2004-0351
Application No. 09/463,277
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete discussion of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellants and by the examiner concerning the above noted
rejection.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we cannot sustain this
rejection.
As acknowledged by the examiner, the appellants’ claimed
label distinguishes over the 2(MFP) compound of Verhey (e.g., see
the paragraph bridging pages 809-10) by requiring that the here
claimed bridge be an 8-azabicyclo [3,2,1] octane comprising
group. That is, the here claimed bridge is bicyclic whereas the
corresponding bridge of the 2(MFP) compound is monocyclic. The
examiner relies upon the teachings of Krijnen to supply this
deficiency of Verhey.
The Krijnen reference is a scientific study of through-bond
interaction on conformation and structure of certain piperidone
and tropanone derivatives. As revealed in figures 2 and 3 on
page 4435 of this reference, the tropanone and piperidone
derivatives are bicyclic and monocyclic respectively. It is the
examiner’s ultimate conclusion that Krijnen would have suggested
modifying Verhey’s 2(MFP) compound to include a bicyclic, rather
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007