Appeal No. 94-3812
Application 07/857,701
Reilly, Jr.
THE REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112
We agree with the examiner that the formulae recited in
claims 30 and 34 are not described, in the sense of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, in appellant's original disclosure.
As correctly noted by the examiner, the formula at page 11 of
the specification depicts for the substituent "X" either "-O-"
or "NHR ". The amides claimed in claims 30 and 34 do not2
include a hydrogen attached to the nitrogen atom. Thus, we
agree with the examiner that appellant's original disclosure
neither describes in haec verba nor reasonably conveys to a
person of ordinary skill in the art that appellant was
possessed of the compounds now claimed by them in claims 30
and 34.
In reaching the above conclusion we have not overlooked
appellant's argument that the "-NHR " is a divalent linking or2
bridging group. Nevertheless, if the recited group were a
divalent linking group then "R " would have to be a divalent2
linking group. Mere inspection of the values recited for
"R ", that is, hydrogen or an alkyl group of from 1 to 42
carbon atoms, establishes the error in appellant's position.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007