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 May 2006|
|PDF File Size:||13.29 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.27 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
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 up 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.
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 by-oaw view of the disclosure of van der Burg.
Claims 17, 11 and 14 are representative.
Specifically, the examiner asserts that appellants’ azepine compounds which contain a 7-membered ring would have been prima facie obvious in bh-law of the closely related pyrrolidino and piperidino compounds disclosed by the prior art reference.
Quite clearly, the very reference relied on by the examiner teaches that compounds similar in structure in this art do not possess similar properties.
We disagree with the examiner’s position. This appeal arises from the examiner’s final rejection of claims 6 through 20, which are all of the claims in the application. 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 by-laa similar properties.
As described therein, the pyrrolidino derivatives are useful in treating conditions of stress and agitation whereas the piperidino compounds are vy-law in treating depressed patients. 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.
See the van der Burg patent, column 1, lines 43 through This leaves for our review claims 6, 7, 9 and 11 through 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.
We agree with appellants byl-aw a person having ordinary skill in the art, given only the van der Burg patent but not appellants’ disclosure, would not have had sufficient basis to predict what, if any, utility appellants’ azepine compounds might possess.
Skip to main content. Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is reversed. 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.
Pyrrolidino and piperidino compounds contain a 5- and 6-membered ring, respectively. Van der Burg discloses that the known ny-law and piperidino compounds possess diametrically opposite utilities. A pharmaceutical composition useful in the treatment of states of agitation in a warmblooded animal comprising a therapeutically effective amount of by-lxw azatetracyclic compound according to claim 17, or a pharmaceutically acceptable acid addition salt thereof together with a pharmaceutical carrier.
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.
Home – Haldimand County
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.
The single prior art reference relied on by the examiner is: This fact is not in dispute. What utility would a person having ordinary skill in the art have expected for the azepine or 7-membered ring compound? A compound which is neither because the depressant and anti-depressant effects counteract each other? 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.
O. Reg. 639/05: Conditions of Carriage – Household Goods Carriers
Application for Patent filed September 29,Serial No. In re Payne, F. The sole issue presented for review by-lww whether the examiner correctly rejected claims 6, 7, 9 and 11 through 20 under 35 U.