Appeal No. 95-0544
Application No. 07/798,971
wherein
18 20
R is hydrogen or lower alkyl, and R is optionally
protected ketone.
The single prior art reference relied on by the examiner
is:
Smith, III et al. (Smith) 4,408,059 Oct. 4, 1983
All of the appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Smith
and the acknowledged state of the prior art set forth in the
specification, pages 18 and 20. All of the appealed claims
further stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as based on a non-enabling disclosure in view of the recited
terms "hydrating" and "cyclizing." Finally, claims 14 and 16
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
According to the examiner, the recitation of "acid/R OH" in18
claim 14, step (b), is unclear. The examiner also argues that
2 4 8
the recitation "R and R to R inclusive are selected from
among the values set forth in Table V of the specification"
renders claim 16 indefinite "because it is improper for a
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007