Patent Interference No. 103,548
whose relevance to indole and indoline hair dyes is unclear at best. Lagrange points to
a portion of an oxidation and cyclization reaction scheme involving catecholamines and
6-hydroxydopamine (Chavdarian, p. 549; Scheme I) which Lagrange (LB 15) alleges
will, after oxidation to iminoquinone and rearrangement, transform 5,6-dihydroxyindoline
to the corresponding indole. However, Lagrange does not explain in what way this
portion of the Chavdarian reaction scheme shows indoles and indolines to be
significantly different. On the contrary, the reaction appears to show, as with the stability
issue, that indoles and indolines are related to each other. Also, whether or not they
may oxidize differently in a Chavdarian system is not an indication that they perform any
differently in hair dyeing applications - the utility shared by both the Grollier indoles and
the Konrad/Lagrange indolines.
Accordingly, Lagrange's arguments attacking the relevance of Grollier's
disclosure of indoles to Lagrange's indolines are unpersuasive. Grollier is analogous
prior art and, therefore, the interchangeability suggested to exist between each of
Grollier's N-hydrogen and lower alkyl N-substituted indoles suggests a comparable
interchangeability would exist between C0-C4 alkyl N-substituted indolines.
FR '797 teaches monohydroxyindolines and exemplifies N-ethyl-4-
hydroxyindoline hydrobromide (Examples 1-3; see also KOB paragraph 12.; LRB 2,
paragraph 57.). FR '797 therefore teaches two alternatives at the N-position on the
structure of monohydroxyindolines: a hydrogen and an ethyl group. This suggests that
the hydrogen and ethyl groups are interchangeable. In view of the fact that
monohydroxyindolines and dihydroxyindolines have similar, structures and
28
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007