Appeal No. 1996-2340
Application 08/108,854
I. Claims 1 through 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fieser I, Fieser II, Grosse and Hoffmann.
We affirm the rejection with respect to Group I, claims 1 through 22 and reverse
with respect to Group II, claims 23 through 32.
Discussion
I.
As discussed above, the claims of Groups I and II stand or fall with representative
claims 1 and 23, respectively.
With respect to Group I, the examiner has premised his conclusion of obviousness
on the combined teachings of Fieser I, Fieser II, Grosse and Hoffmann. The Fieser I,
Fieser II, and Grosse references disclose the production of chloroformates by reacting a
primary alcohol with phosgene. To that end, the examiner points out numerous examples
which demonstrate the use of aromatic, non-aromatic and quasi-aromatic alcohols with
phosgene to produce a chloroformate. Answer,
pp. 3-4 and 6-7. Fieser II, in particular, discloses the production of a chloroformate
(9-fluorenylmethylchloroformate) by reacting phosgene (COCl ) with an aromatic alcohol
2
(9-fluorenylmethanol) in methylene dichloride. Fieser II, p. 145.
Hoffmann discloses the preparation of chloroformates by reacting phosgene with an
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007