In re Lunsford

The issue in this appeal is whether the invention as embodied in the chemical compounds, defined in appealed claims 6 and 13, would be obvious in view of the teachings of the prior art references of record.1 The claims read as follows:

6. l-Ethyl-3-pyrrolidyl benzilate hydroehoride.

13. l-Ethyl-3-pyrrolidyl benzilate methobromide.

The compounds are disclosed as being active in inhibiting intestinal spasms. The application 2 states that an object of the invention is “to provide novel acetylcholine antagonists having a high degree of activity and satisfactory activity when compared with known…