Appeal No. 96-0008
Application 08/243,428
not yield the halohydryn taught by Ohmori but, rather, a
primary alcohol with the iodine substituent on the carbon
adjacent the terminal carbon. In our view, appellants' have
produced convincing evidence that the reaction scheme of
Ohmori does not produce the depicted inter-mediate prior to
forming the epoxide. However, the question remains, unasked
by the examiner, whether the error attributed to Ohmori's
reaction scheme is relevant to the ultimate epoxide produced.
Appellants have produced no evidence that even if the
intermediate of Ohmori's reaction scheme is a primary alcohol,
the epoxidizing and dehalogenation steps disclosed by Ohmori
would not produce the described epoxide compound that is
homologous to the claimed compounds .
In our view, the compelling evidence for non-enablement
is found in the declarations of Krespan and King. Appellants
present Dr. Krespan as "a nationally and internationally
renowned
scientist in the field of organofluorine chemistry," (page 6
of brief) and his credentials as an expert in the relevant art
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007