Appeal No. 96-2105
Application 08/059,861
Appellants point out (brief, page 7) that in Brunsvold’s
example 1A (col. 5, lines 5-46), 1.05 molar equivalents of an
acylating reagent, i.e., isopropylchloroformate, and 1.05
molar equivalents of triethylamine are used. Appellants argue
that “[t]he usual understanding in the art is to use an excess
of acylating reagents and an excess of a base as a proton
scavenger
to drive the reaction to completion” (brief, page 7). In
support of this argument, appellants rely upon March, which
discloses that in the alcoholysis of acyl halides, “[a] base
is frequently added to combine with the HX which is formed”,
where X is a halide. Appellants conclude that Brunsvold4
discloses the use of 4-dimethylaminopyridine only in admixture
with triethylamine, wherein the amount of triethylamine is at
least equivalent to the amount of the acylating agent (brief,
page 8). Thus, in appellants’ view, Brunsvold would not have
fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, use of
4We do not find in the relied-upon portion of the
reference a disclosure of use an excess of a base.
-5-5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007