Appeal No. 95-0865
Application 08/08/007,950
Claim 7 is rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Bisacchi, Slusarchyk, Searcey, Hagberg I, Ichikawa and
Zahler.
Claim 7 is believed to be unpatentable for the same reasons
that Claim 6 is unpatentable. Bisacchi describes R "protecting"
4
groups which are the same as applicants' claimed Prot groups
(col. 3, lines 59-63). The use of a cyclobutane wherein X is
trifluoromethanesulfonyloxy has already been discussed. Bisacchi
(col. 7, last line), Slusarchyk (page 7, Compound 14) and Hagberg
I (page 16, line 10 where R is chloro) describe the use of7
compounds corresponding to applicants' compound wherein X is1
chloro. Both Searcey (page 1312) and Hagberg I (Example 10)
describe the use of tetrabutylammonium salt forms.
e. Claim 8
Claim 8 is rejected as being unpatentable over Bisacchi,
Slusarchyk, Searcey, Hagberg I, Ichikawa and Zahler.
Claim 8 is believed to be unpatentable for the same reasons
that Claims 6 and 7 are unpatentable, it being further noted that
Bisacchi describes an R protecting group which is acetyl (col.4
3, line 61) or benzoyl (col. 3, line 62).
f. Claim 9
- 32 -
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007