Appeal No. 2005-0393
Application 09/536,728
Having carefully considered the record before us which includes the appellants’
Brief and Reply Brief, as well as the examiner’s Answer, we (i) reverse Rejection I;
(ii) affirm Rejection II, but denominate the affirmance as a new ground of rejection; and
(iii) remand Rejection III and IV for further consideration by the examiner.
We point out that given our disposition of this case, claim 26 is now free of the
prior art.
Background and Discussion
As indicated by the claims above, the present invention is directed to substituted
phenyliminoimidazolines and pharmaceutical compositions which comprise them. Said
phenyliminoimidazolines are said to be useful as “"1L-agonists for treating urinary
incontinence, particularly, stress incontinence.” Specification, p. 1, para. 1.
As discussed above, the claims stand or fall with representative claims 21
and 39.
I.
The examiner argues that Olson discloses 2-(substituted phenylimino)
imidazolidines which are structurally similar to the claimed compounds when R1 is
methyl, R2 is NR6R7, R6 is methyl, n-propyl or isopropyl, R7 is hydrogen, methyl, ethyl, n-
propyl or isopropyl, and R3, R4 and R5 are hydrogen. Answer, pp. 3-4. According to the
examiner, the prior art compound differs from the claimed compound in that the group
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007