|
|
Court OpinionsState LawsUS CodeUS Constitution |
Ex parte PERSHADSINGH et al. - Page 6Legal Research Home > Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 1997 > Ex parte PERSHADSINGH et al. - Page 6
Appeal No. 95-0885
Application 07/725,327
evident that Hindley’s compounds include a primary or secondary amine component comprising:
R
|
1
A -N- (CH ) -O~
2 n
where R can be hydrogen or an alkyl or aryl group and A is a substituted or unsubstituted aromatic1
heterocyclic group. The amine component is conspicuously missing from the compounds defined in
appellants’ dependent claim 18. Since the examiner has not presented any reasoning as to why the
compounds in the claims on appeal would be structurally obvious over Hindley, the rejection as to
claim 18 is reversed.
Claim 1 is directed to a method of controlling essential hypertension using a thiazolidine
derivative. Claim 1 defines a compound having a 5-aryl substituted thiazolidine component of
formula I wherein R is an aromatic carbocyclic or an aromatic heterocyclic, X can be a lower
1
alkylidene radical, and Y and Z can be oxo. In the specification, appellants define “carbocyclic” as
being “a homocyclic ring compound in which all the ring atoms are carbon, e.g. benzene” (p. 15, lines
36-37), “heterocyclic” as being a “ring compound having atoms other than carbon in its nucleus, e.g.
pyrrole or thiophene (p. 16, lines 1-3), and “benzyl” as “an aryl radical derived from toluene” (p. 16,
lines 12-13).
Hindley does disclose thiazolidinedione compounds having the thiazolidine component of
formula I as set forth in appellants’ claims (where X is a lower alkyl group, and Y and Z are oxo) to
which is linked or bridged an aromatic carboxylic (see inter alia, Examples 1, 5, 7 and 11 in Hindley)
and aromatic heterocyclic components (see inter alia, Examples 3, 7, 10, 19 and 23). Accordingly,
-6-
|