Appeal No. 1996-2308
Application 08/179,008
reasonable degree of precision and particularity. The
examiner’s assertion that the treatment with the di- or tri-
chlorobenzolychloride, base and catalyst produce a final
product in the one-step process (ii) and an intermediate in
the two-step process (iii) is not such an explanation.
Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have interpreted the recited one-step process (ii) as a
process in which the di-or tri-chlorobenzoate intermediate is
formed under conditions in which it is unstable with respect
to
cyclization and undergoes spontaneous cyclization to form the
azetidinone, and would have interpreted the two-step
process (iii) as one in which the intermediate is formed under
conditions which allow its isolation, and the isolated
intermediate is subsequently treated to bring about the
cyclization (brief, page 13). This is a plausible argument
which the examiner has not rebutted with evidence or technical
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007