Appeal No. 2006-1158
Application No. 10/052,733
based on a reasonable expectation that the obtained compound
would possess the hair dye precursor property of the prior art
compounds due to the close structural similarity of the former
with the latter.
On the other hand, it is the appellants’ fundamental
argument that no such motivation or reasonable expectation
exists in this case. As support for this argument, the
appellants cite In re Grabiak, 769 F.2wd 729, 226 USPQ 870 (Fed.
Cir. 1985). The appellants’ argument is unpersuasive.
Contrary to the appellants’ apparent belief, In re Grabiak,
id., is inapposite to the factual and legal issues before us on
this appeal. Unquestionably more relevant to these issues are:
In re Grunwell, 609 F.2d 486, 491, 203 USPQ 1055, 1058 (CCPA
1979); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 641, 199 USPQ 137, 139 (CCPA
1978); In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 460-61, 195 USPQ 426, 429-30
(CCPA 1977); In re Doebel, 461 F.2d 823, 824, 174 USPQ 158, 159
(CCPA 1972); In re Rosselet, 347 F.2d 847, 851, 146 USPQ 183,
185 (CCPA 1965); In re Zickendraht, 319 F.2d 225, 227, 138 USPQ
22, 25 (CCPA 1963); In re Henze, 181 F.2d 196, 201, 85 USPQ 261,
265 (CCPA 1950); and In re Hass, 141 F.2d 122, 125, 60 USPQ 544,
547 (CCPA 1944).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007