Ex parte VISHWAKARMA et al. - Page 4




               Appeal No. 94-4495                                                                                                  
               Application 07/865,165                                                                                              


                       The following prior art references are relied upon by the examiner to support the rejection of              
               the claims:                                                                                                         
               Steglich et al. (Steglich), Angew. Chem. Internat. Edit., “N,N-Dimethyl-4-pyridinamine, a Very                      
               Effective Acylation Catalyst,” Vol. 8, No. 12, p. 981 (1969)                                                        
               Fieser et al. (Fieser I), Reagents for Organic Synthesis, Vol. 3, Wiley-Interscience, pp. 118-119                   
               (1972)  (received in the PTO Scientific Library on June 6, 1972).                                                   
               Bald et al. (Bald), Chemistry Letters, “A Facile Synthesis of Carboxamides by Using 1-Methyl-2-                     
               Halopyridinium Iodides as Coupling Reagents,” pp. 1163-1166 (1975).                                                 
               Mukaiyama et al. (Mukaiyama), Chemistry Letters, “A Convenient Method For The Synthesis o f                         
               Carboxylic Esters,” pp. 1045-1048 (1975).                                                                           
               Fieser et al. (Fieser II), Reagents for Organic Synthesis, Vol. 9, Wiley-Interscience, pp. 156-157                  
               (1981)  (received in the PTO Scientific Library on October 5, 1983).                                                
               Scriven, Chem. Soc. Rev., “4-Dialkylaminopyridines: Super Acylation and Alkylation Catalysts,” Vol.                 
               12, No. 2, pp. 129-161 (1983).                                                                                      
                                                         The Rejection                                                             
                       Claims 1 and 3-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable ove r                          
               Mukaiyma or Balt taken with Steglich or Scriven or Fieser I or II.                                                  

                                                            Opinion                                                                
                       We have carefully considered the respective positions advanced by appellants and th e                       
               examiner.  For the reasons set forth below, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection.                           




                       We point out that in a rejection under 35 U.S.C.   103, it is basic that all elements recited              
                                                                4                                                                  





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007