Appeal No. 95-0865
Application 08/08/007,950
2-amino-6-chloropurine, among other compounds, to make the
compound applicants make.
Applicants further argue (Appeal Brief, pages 15 and 16)
that there would have been no motivation to select the
tetraalkylammonium salt described by Searcey in place of the
known alkali salts. On this record, we disagree for the reasons
given in connection with our explanation of the rejection of
claim 25, infra.
Applicants still further argue (Appeal Brief, pages 15 and
16-17) that one would not expect an increase in yield (as
described by Searcey) in the process of Bisacchi or Slusarchyk.
Again, there are at least two answers to applicants' argument.
First, applicants' claims do not require an increased yield. In
fact, applicants' specification does not set out a prior art
problem which is solved by the claimed process. Second, we
disagree that there is no expectation of success when a purine
in its tetraalkylammonium salt form is used. Example 10 of
Hagberg I demonstrates quite the contrary. Moreover, given the
rather compelling improved yield results described by Searcey, we
believe that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have
reasonably expected improved yields when a purine in its
tetraalkylammonium form is reacted with a halo-containing
compound to attach the compound to the purine at the 9-position.
- 23 -
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007