Appeal No. 2001-1581 Page 5
Application No. 08/833,172
second paragraph, as indefinite in the recitation of “cycloheteroalkyl.” As set
forth supra, claims 6, 7 and 12-14 will fall together with claim 1.
The definition of “R”:
According to the examiner (Answer, page 5), “[t]he definition of R is
unclear. R appears in the structural formula attached via a single bond [bond 1]
to a carbon which also has attached to it a –C(O)A group on the right [bond 2],
the HC(O)N(OR[1])Cx- group on the left [bond 3], and a hydrogen [bond 4].” As
the examiner explains (id.) the structural formula “clearly shows that R is
monovalent. It has one bond to the carbon. The carbon already has four bonds.”
Therefore, the examiner finds (id.), the phrase “‘R can be joined together with the
carbon to which it is attached to form a 3 to 7 membered ring which may
optionally be fused to a benzene ring’” indefinite.
In response, appellant argues (Brief, page 8), “R must be a bivalent group.
This is inherent in the definition of R.” For the reasons provided by the examiner
we are not persuaded by this argument.
In addition, appellant continues (Brief, page 8) by combining the first
definition of R – “R is H, alkyl, alkenyl, aryl-(CH2)p-, heteroaryl-(CH2)p -,
cycloheteroalkyl-(CH2)p -,” – with the alternative definition of R – “R can be joined
together with the carbon to which it is attached to form a 3 to 7 membered ring
which may optionally be fused to a benzene ring” – arguing (id.), “[t]he ring thus
can be formed with any of the above R groups which will give a 3 to 7-membered
ring.” However, as the examiner explains, “[t]he second alternative for R doesn’t
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007