By-law to provide for licensing and regulating businesses in the Municipality By-laws , , , , , , and are. 2: do ; 05 2 “comb:6 50¢ v coo g 93o bin? 2: E icooEnz b>o k Each USO. bylaw 02oz SEQ$ E3 50 e ontario regulation / made under the. truck transportation acT. Made: December 7, Filed: December 9, Published on e-Laws.
|Published (Last):||4 February 2015|
|PDF File Size:||4.55 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||14.69 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The single prior art reference relied on by the examiner is: As described therein, the pyrrolidino derivatives are useful in treating conditions of stress and agitation whereas the piperidino compounds are useful in treating depressed patients.
O. Reg. 639/05: Conditions of Carriage – Household Goods Carriers
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is reversed. Van der Burg discloses that the known pyrrolidino and piperidino compounds possess diametrically opposite utilities.
In the examiner’s answer, page 2, the examiner indicates that the subject matter defined in claims 8 and 10 is allowable over the prior art of record. Skip to main content.
Law Document English View |
The sole issue presented for review is whether the examiner correctly rejected claims 6, 7, 9 and 11 through 20 under 35 U. This fact is 6390-5 in dispute. A method of treating states of agitation in a warmblooded animal which comprises administering to said animal a therapeutically effective amount of a compound according to claim 17, or a pharmaceutically acceptable acid addition salt thereof. We agree with appellants that a person having ordinary skill in the art, given only the van der Burg patent but not appellants’ disclosure, would 639-50 have had sufficient basis to predict what, if any, utility appellants’ azepine compounds might possess.
As acknowledged by the examiner in his answer, page 4, a person having ordinary skill in the art ‘knows that the 5- and 6-membered compounds also possess opposite utilities. This appeal arises from the examiner’s yb-law rejection of claims 6 through 20, which are all of the claims in the application. A compound which is neither because the depressant and anti-depressant effects counteract each other? Application for Patent filed September 29,Serial 63-05.
Home – Haldimand County
This leaves for our review claims bg-law, 7, 9 and 11 through The examiner here takes the position that appellants’ claimed compounds, pharmaceutical compositions containing same, and method of treating states of agitation by administering same would have been obvious in view of the disclosure of van der Burg.
What utility would a person having ordinary skill in the art have expected for the azepine or 7-membered ring compound? Pyrrolidino and piperidino compounds contain a 5- and 6-membered ring, respectively.
Specifically, the examiner asserts that appellants’ azepine compounds which contain a 7-membered ring would have been prima facie obvious in view of the closely related pyrrolidino and piperidino compounds disclosed by by-,aw prior art reference.
We disagree with the examiner’s position. In re Payne, F.
Claims 17, 11 and 14 are representative. A pharmaceutical composition useful in the treatment of states of agitation in a warmblooded animal comprising a therapeutically effective amount of an azatetracyclic compound according to claim 17, or a pharmaceutically acceptable acid addition salt thereof together with a pharmaceutical carrier.
Quite clearly, the very reference relied on by the examiner teaches that compounds similar in structure in this art do not possess similar properties.
More specifically, the issue is whether the examiner has established that the claimed subject matter would have been prima facie obvious in view of the disclosure of van der Burg. In obviousness rejections based on close similarity in chemical structure, the prima facie case of obviousness rises from the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.
In conclusion the examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness is based on the expectation that compounds which are similar in structure will have similar properties.
The very prior art reference here relied on by the examiner, however, undermines the prima facie case because the reference teaches that compounds similar in structure in this art do not possess similar properties.
R1 represents hydrogen, lower alkyl, cycloalkyl-lower alkyl of not more than 10 carbon atoms, lower alkenyl, lower alkynyl, di-lower alkylamino -lower alkyl, hydroxy lower alkyl, alkoxy lower alkyl, alkanoyloxy lower alkyl having 4 to 11 carbon atoms, lower alkylthio-lower alkyl, phenyl-lower alkyl, phenyl- lower alkyl substituted by halogen with an atomic number by-las to 35, lower alkyl, lower alkoxy, methylenedioxy, and trifluoromethyl, or lower alkanoyl, the ring A is unsubstituted or substituted by halogen with an atomic number up to 35, lower alkyl, hydroxyl, lower alkoxy, alkanoyloxy having carbon atoms, lower alkylthio, trifluoromethyl or cyano, X represents 0, S, methylene, a direct bond or a divalent radical of the partial formula.
See the van der Burg patent, column 1, lines 43 through