Appeal No. 2005-2257
Application No. 10/087,028
On the record before us, the examiner has proffered no
evidence whatsoever to support his position that Hauptman’s
phenyl substituents should not be considered branched at the
imino-bonded carbon atom. In contrast, the appellant not only
has challenged the propriety of the examiner’s position but has
submitted evidence to refute it. This evidence is in the form of
a declaration under 37 CFR § 1.132, filed September 20, 2004, by
Dr. James W. Proscia. In this declaration, Dr. Proscia explains
why an aryl group directly bonded to an imino nitrogen “is
clearly branched” and “is clearly understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art of organic chemistry as ‘branched at the imino
carbon’” (declaration, page 2).
Under these circumstances, we are compelled to agree with
the appellant that Hauptman’s above discussed compounds are
excluded from the appealed claims. No other determination is
possible where, as here, the only evidence presented to us
concerning this matter supports the appellant’s position. We
hereby reverse, therefore, the examiner’s Section 102 rejection
of claims 12-20 as being anticipated by Hauptman.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007