Appeal No. 95-0865
Application 08/08/007,950
Claim 9 is rejected as being unpatentable over Bisacchi,
Slusarchyk, Searcey, Hagberg I, Ichikawa and Zahler.
Claim 9 is believed to be unpatentable for the same reasons
that Claims 6-8 are unpatentable, it being further noted that
Hagberg I describes the use of R groups, corresponding to7
applicants' Y group, which may be iodo (page 16, line 10; page
1
12, lines 1-3 referring to Y; page 10, line 1 referring to X ;1
and page 9, lines 19-20 wherein X can be "iodine (sic--iodo)").1
g. Claim 10
We do not reject claim 10 because we have not been able to
find anything in the combination of Bisacchi, Slusarchyk,
Searcey, Hagberg I, Ichikawa and Zahler which suggests the use of
an ammonium salt wherein R is benzyl. Our decision not to
4
reject claim 10 under 37 CFR § 1.196(b) is without prejudice to
the examiner citing and applying additional prior art which
describes the use of an ammonium salt within the scope of claim
10.
h. Claim 11
Claim 11 is rejected as being unpatentable over Bisacchi,
Slusarchyk, Searcey, Hagberg I, Ichikawa and Zahler.
Claim 11 is believed to be unpatentable for the same
reasons that Claims 6-9 are unpatentable. Bisacchi describes (1)
- 33 -
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007