Thus, example 1 describes a 3-cyanoiminomorpholine compound whereas examples 2-4 describe
1,3,5-triazine compounds.
8. The ‘146 patent does not explicitly state a preference for the exemplified compounds.
Moreover, the ‘146 patent does not identify any of the exemplified compounds as exhibiting better or
worse insecticidal properties than the others. The ‘146 patent merely states that: “The preparation and
use of the active compounds according to the invention can be seen from the following examples.” (SX
2003, col. 6, lines 65-67).
9. The 4-(2-chloro-5-pyridylmethyl)-3-cyanoiminomorpholine formed in example 1 of the ‘146
patent is encompassed by Shiokawa’s described “preferred” subgenus of insecticidal heterocyclic
compounds. Specifically, in the compound 4-(2-chloro-5-pyridylmethyl)-3-cyanoiminomorpholine: A
is 2-chloro-5-pyridin-5yl methyl; R is H; Z is -CH -CH -O-; E is CH ; X is N; and, Y is CN (a cyano1
2 2 2
group). Accordingly, each of the A, R , Z; E, X, Y variables for the compound of example 1 is1
encompassed within the definition given for the “preferred” compounds. (See SX 2003, col. 2, lines 4-
15).
10. The compounds of examples 2, 3 and 4 do not fall within the “preferred” subgenus of
insecticidal heterocyclic compounds as described by the ‘146 patent. Specifically, the ‘146 patent
states that preferred compounds according to the invention are those in which R represents a C alkyl2
1-3
group, a C alkoxy group or 2-chloro-5-pyridin-5yl methyl. Each of the “desired” heterocyclic
1-3
7
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007