Appeal No. 1998-2334
Application No. 08/348,385
14-16 of the subject specification plainly disclose that the
substitution reaction of the appellants’ invention may include
both leaving groups, rather than just one leaving group,
whereby both the A and A’ groups in the precursor compound D
may be sequentially replaced. Indeed, the reaction scheme
shown at the top portion of specification page 16 is very
similar to the reaction scheme shown by Wu at the bottom of
columns 5 and 6 including the specification page 16 reaction
of an intermediate with R I and patentee’s bottom most
F
reaction in column 6 of an intermediate with CH I.
3
It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the Patent
and Trademark Office, claims in an application are to be given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification and that claim language should be read in light
of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548,
218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). When so interpreted,
appealed claim 1 encompasses intermediate reactions in forming
a compound of the formula C for the reasons discussed above
including especially the appellants’ disclosure of
intermediate reactions at specification pages 14-16. As a
consequence, we cannot agree with the appellants’ above quoted
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007