where B is O, S, or N-R ; and, (3) the conclusion that since certain heterocycles of Group I appear in2 13
the examples and Table 1 of the ‘146 patent, Shiokawa has demonstrated a clear preference for the
compounds of Group I. (SX 2001, ¶16-25).
The ‘146 patent does not appear to state that the Z group or E group constituted the essence of
the inventive insecticidal heterocyclic compounds. Indeed, the ‘146 patent is silent as to the effects of
each of the individual substituents that are allowed to vary, i.e., A, R , Z, E, X and Y, upon the1
heterocyclic insecticidal compounds of the invention. Further, the ‘146 patent does not appear to recite
a “special interest” in the Z group or the E group. Shiokawa has failed to demonstrate that the plain
language of the ‘146 patent directs one skilled in the art to the classify the heterocycles of Table 1,
based upon their definitions of Z and E, into“core-heterocycle” groups.
Similarly, we find no reason to disagree with Maienfisch’s assertion that the ‘146 patent does
not appear to classify the 40 compounds of Table 1 into four core-heterocycle groups with Group I
represented by the formula:
B
N N
X Y
13Note, Shiokawa’s core-heterocycles of Groups II, III and IV do not appear to possess the
same “interchangeability” as that of Group I where the heteroatom or heterogroup is O, S or NR . 2
Specifically, Groups II and III are directed to heterocycles having 2 methyl groups (CH ) and one
2
oxygen heteroatom. Furthermore, Group IV is a heterocycle having 2 methyl groups and a moiety Q
which is defined as oxygen or NH. Shiokawa has failed to sufficiently explain why the
interchangeability of Group I differs from that of Groups II-IV.
39
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007