Appeal No. 95-3117
Application 08/096,207
Vol. 2, pp. 238-246 (1992); Flippen-Anderson et al. (Flippen-
Anderson), “Thiaphysovenol Phenylcarbamates: X-Ray Structures
of Biologically Active and Inactive Anticholinesterase
Agents,” Heterocycles, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 79-86 (1993); Atack
et al. (Atack), “Comparative Inhibitory Effects of Various
Physostigmine Analogs Against Acetyl- and
Butyrylcholinesterases,” J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., Vol. 249,
No. 1, pp. 194-202 (1989);
Hamer et al. (Hamer), EP-253,372, published January 20,
1988; Yu et al. (Yu III), “Practical Synthesis of Unnatural
(+)-Physostigmine and Carbamate Analogues,” Heterocycles,
Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 745-750 (1988); Yu et al (Yu IV), “73.
Physovenines: Efficient Synthesis of (-)- and (+)-Physovenine
and Synthesis of Carbamate Analogues of (-)-Physovenine.
Anticholinesterase Activity and Analgesic Properties of
Optically Active Physovenines,” Helv. Chim. Acta, Vol. 74,
pp. 761-766 (1991); Pomponi et al. (Pomponi), EP-154,864,
published September 18, 1985; and Chem. Abst., Vol. 110, No.
9, Abst. No. 69253s, “New Analogs of Physostigmine;
Alternative Drugs for Alzheimer’s Disease,” p. 41 (February
27, 1989).
We review the examiner’s rejections presuming a priori
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007