Appeal No. 95-0865
Application 08/08/007,950
p. Claim 19
Claim 19 is rejected as being unpatentable over Bisacchi,
Slusarchyk, Searcey, Hagberg I, Ichikawa and Zahler. Claim 19
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.
The use of "hydrogenolysis" to deprotect R groups is described4
by Bisacchi (col. 8, lines 36-44), particularly when the P
protecting group is benzyl as required by Claim 19.
q. Claims 20-21
Claims 20-21 are rejected as being unpatentable over
Bisacchi, Slusarchyk, Searcey, Hagberg I, Ichikawa and Zahler.
Claim 20 is similar to Claim 13, but calls for a step (b) in
which the "Prot" protecting groups are removed and the Y group
1
(e.g., a chloro) at the 6-position is converted to a 6-methoxy
()O)CH ) group. As is apparent from Claim 21, step (b) may be
3
accomplished by treatment with sodium methoxide in methanol.
- 39 -
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007