Ex Parte LANGE et al - Page 5



              Appeal No. 1998-0900                                                                                        
              Application No. 08/290,047                                                                                  

              polymerization and copolymerization of these optically active dipeptides.  For the                          
              purposes of this appeal, we find it unnecessary to determine whether claim 1                                
              encompasses compositions or is directed, alternatively, only to the individual dipeptides                   
              defined by the structural formula.  It is sufficient to note that claim 1 requires that what                
              is claimed is "optically active."  Thus, to the extent that the claim could be read to                      
              encompass a combination of more than one dipeptide optical isomer, it is clear that one                     
              isomeric form must predominate or there would be no observed optical activity.3  Thus,                      
              the claim can not be read to encompass a racemic mixture of dipeptides.                                     
                                       The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112                                               
                     In rejecting claims 1 - 3 stand under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, the                         
              examiner questions whether "[t]he phrase 'R5 . . . together with R4, forms a C5-C6-                         
              cycloalkyl' is ambiguous.  Does this mean that both R5 and R4 are individually cycloalkyl                   
              or they form a single cycloalkylidene moiety or they form a nitrogen heterocyclic moiety                    
              including the nitrogen to which they are attached?"  (Answer, page 15).  The examiner                       
              has given several examples of how one skilled in this art could presumably read the                         
              noted phase. (Id.)  However, the examiner has not explained why the phrase, while                           
              capable of interpretation, should be regarded as unclear merely because it may be                           
              interpreted, alternatively, to encompass more than one possibility.  In rejecting claim 3,                  
              the examiner urges that "it is not known what is intended by 'derived from'."  The                          
              examiner urges that "[o]ne can derive a variety of different moieties from the same                         
              amino acid and it cannot be determined which derivative is being referred to in claim 3."                   

                     3 Morrison and Boyd, page 84 - "Clearly, if we are to observe optical activity, the material we are  
              dealing with must contain an excess of one enantiomer; enough of an excess that the net optical rotation    
              can be detected by the particular polarimeter at hand."                                                     
                                                            5                                                             


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007