Appeal No. 2005-0467
Application No. 10/217,278
Although EP '211 does not exemplify the claimed compounds,
we, like the examiner, are convinced that the reference teaches
compounds within the scope of the appealed claims and, thereby,
would have rendered them obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art. As explained by the examiner, the abstract of the reference
defines substituents R3 and R4, which correspond to appellants'
R1, as electron donating groups. Accordingly, we agree with the
examiner that the reference fairly teaches aryl acrylates claimed
by appellants.
Appellants' principal contention is that EP '211 fails to
provide an enabling disclosure of compounds that are embraced by
the appealed claims. However, appellants fail to provide any
compelling line of reasoning, let alone the requisite objective
evidence, which demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the
art would be unable to make the claimed compounds based upon the
reference disclosure. See Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel
Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1355 n. 22, 65 USPQ2d 1385, 1416-17 n. 22
(Fed. Cir. 2003). Appellants' pointing to mistakes of a
typographical nature in the reference disclosure falls far short
of establishing that one of ordinary skill in the art would be
unable to make compounds that are fairly taught by EP '211. It
is well settled that counsel's arguments in the Brief are no
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007