Appeal No. 95-0865
Application 08/08/007,950
The addition of steps (b) and (c) to what is otherwise
basically the process of Claim 6 does not render Claim 13, as a
whole, patentable over the prior art. A person having ordinary
skill in the art would have wanted the oxo compound because it is
a known active and useful compound (specification, page 1;
Bisacchi, col. 1, lines 7-20). Steps (b) and (c), as shown by
the prior art, are conventional organic synthesis techniques.
k. Claim 14
Claim 14 is rejected as being unpatentable over Bisacchi,
Slusarchyk, Searcey, Hagberg I, Ichikawa and Zahler.
Claim 14 is believed to be unpatentable for the same
reasons that Claim 13 is unpatentable.
Claim 14 requires that step (b) take place in the presence
of a fluoride ion. Bisacchi describes the use of compounds which
produce fluoride ions to accomplish deprotection (col. 8,
lines 29-31 and 53-54; col. 9, line 47).
Step (c) of Claim 14 further requires acid hydrolysis.
Slusarchyk describes the use of aqueous hydrochloric acid to
accomplish conversion of the chloro group to an oxo group (page
8, line 28).
- 36 -
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007