Ex parte ARCHIBALD et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 95-3340                                                           
          Application  07/939,172                                                      



          or:                                                                          
                     1      2                                                          
                    R  and R  are combined as a single                                 
                    divalent radical which is a member                                 
                    selected from the group consisting of -                            
                    N(NO )- and -N(NO )-CH -N(NO )-; and2           2    2    2                                       
                    R  is a member selected from the group3                                                                 
                    consisting of NF , ONO , NO  and N .2     2    2      3                                
                    All the claims stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R.                   
          § 1.192(c). (See Brief, page 4).  Hence, we direct our attention             
          to claim 1 with respect to the rejections.                                   
                    The references relied upon by the examiner are:                    
          Rohrback et al. (Rohrback)      3,729,501      Apr. 24, 1973                 
          Goldstein et al. (Goldstein)    4,118,414      Oct.  3, 1978                 
          Hafner et al. (Hafner), J. Am. Chem. Soc., Vol. 79, No. 14,                  
          pp. 3783-86 (1957).                                                          
          Wenker, J. Am. Chem. Soc., Vol. 57, No. 6, pp. 1079-80 (1935).               
          Grakauskas et al. (Grakauskas), J. Org. Chem., Vol. 35, No. 5,               
          pp. 1545-49 (1970).                                                          
                    Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                 
          unpatentable over Rohrback.  Claims 1-5 also stand rejected under            
          35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rohrback in view of Hafner,             
          Wenker, Grakauskas and Goldstein.  We reverse both rejections.               
                                       Opinion                                         
                    The examiner indicates that claims 1-5 have only been              
          examined to the extent that they read on the elected species,                
                                          3                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007