Appeal No. 1996-2308
Application 08/179,008
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with
appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not well
founded. Accordingly, we do not sustain these rejections.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The relevant inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is whether the claim language, as it would have
been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light
of appellants’ specification and the prior art, sets out and
circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree
of precision and particularity. See In re Moore, 439 F.2d
1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
The examiner points out (answer, page 3) that in each of
appellants’ independent claims 1 and 6, the hydroxyamide can
be cyclized by treating it with:
(ii) a di- or tri-chlorobenzolychloride, an
aqueous solution of a base and a phase transfer
catalyst; or
(iii) a di- or tri-chlorobenzolychloride, an aqueous
solution of a base and a phase transfer catalyst,
isolating the resulting di-or tri-chlorobenzoate
intermediate, then treating the intermediate with an
aqueous solution of a base and a phase transfer
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007