Appeal No. 2004-0351
Application No. 09/463,277
than monocyclic, bridge structure. This conclusion and the
underlying analysis in support thereof are expressed as follows
in the paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7 of the answer:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at
the time of appellant’s invention to modify the charge
transfer label MFP of Verhey et al[.] to include a bicyclic
bridge structure in place of the monocyclic bridge, as per
the teaching of Krijnen et al. Verhey et al[.] teach that
the desired charge transfer fluorescent properties of MFP
are effected by intramolecular electron transfer from the
donor to the acceptor via the bridge (p. 809, left hand
column). Krijnen et al[.] teach that the bicyclic bridge
forces the donor and acceptor of a charge transfer molecule
into an axial conformation to yield optimal intramolecular
transfer. Therefore, substitution of the bicyclic bridge of
Krijnen et al[.] for the monocyclic bridge of Verhey et
al[.] would have resulted in optimal intramolecular charge
transfer and thus optimal fluorescence capability.
The examiner’s position is not well taken for a number of
reasons.
First, it is questionable whether the teachings of Krijnen
would have suggested to an artisan with ordinary skill that the
bicyclic bridge structure shown in figure 2 is preferred over the
monocyclic bridge structure shown in figure 3 with respect to
optimizing through bond interaction and thus charge transfer
absorption. We recognize the examiner’s point that Krijnen
indicates a dynamic conformation equilibrium between equatorial
and axial conformations in compound 4 of figure 3 and that little
if any through bond interaction is expected to occur in an
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007