Appeal No. 95-2603
Application 07/915,871
However, all of Ciampolini’s prior art bicyclam compounds
with bridging groups are substituted at the ends of the
bridging groups (i.e., 1,2-ethanediyl, 1,3-propanediyl, 1,4-
butanediyl, etc.). All of appellants’ claimed active
ingredients with corresponding bridging groups contain the
cyclam rings in the 1,2-positions. Such a disposition is
consistent with the prior art (Ciampolini) only with respect
to the end bridged ethanediyl group of appealed claim 23.
Clearly, the here claimed 1,2- disposition is inconsistent
with the prior art with respect to the non-end bridged groups
of appellants’ claim 23. More particularly, it is not clear
how this disposition can be accomplished with the steric
hindrance expected from such large cyclic rings being
substituted adjacent to each other at the 1,2 positions on the
non-end bridging groups of propanediyl, butanediyl,
pentanediyl and hexanediyl recited in claim 23. Therefore
there is a lack of enabling disclosure as to how to make the
claimed active ingredients with the bicyclam rings substituted
in the 1,2-position for the above noted propanediyl,
butanediyl, pentanediyl and hexanediyl bridging groups.
18
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007