Appeal No. 95-0865
Application 08/08/007,950
n. Claim 17
Claim 17 is rejected as being unpatentable over Bisacchi,
Slusarchyk, Searcey, Hagberg I, Ichikawa and Zahler. Claim 17
requires the same two additional steps as Claim 13, but in
reverse order. The order in which deprotection and conversion of
the chloro group to the oxo group at the 6-position take place
would not seem to be significant. In this respect, we call
attention to Bisacchi (col. 8, lines 20-26) which teaches that
(1) deprotection then chloro to oxo conversion or (2) chloro to
oxo conversion followed by deprotection are optional orders for
accomplishing both deprotection and chloro to oxo conversion.
o. Claim 18
We do not reject claim 18 because we have not been able to
find anything in the combination of Bisacchi, Slusarchyk,
Searcey, Hagberg I, Ichikawa and Zahler which describes the use
of hot aqueous acetic acid for conducting step (b). Our decision
not to 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 hot aqueous acetic acid for
accomplishing conversion of a chloro group to an oxo group at the
6-position of a purine.
- 38 -
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007