Appeal No. 2000-0599
Application No. 08/357,363
presence or absence of impurities. Thus, claim 32 does not recite a limitation that
serves to distinguish over Pandit, and the rejection is affirmed with respect to this claim.
Claim 33, however, contains the limitation Ahaving substantially no detectable
signal in the δ 7.1 - 7.4 region.@ While we agree with the examiner that this negative
limitation does not have a bearing on overall purity, it does reflect the absence of
significant amounts of the monobenzyl and dibenzyl impurities found in Pandit=s
preparation, and thus serves as a limitation distinguishing over Pandit.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 33 and 45 as anticipated by Pandit is
reversed with respect to claim 45, but affirmed with respect to claim 32.
VI. Anticipation by Hannah
According to the examiner, appellants are not entitled to the benefit of their
British priority documents under 35 U.S.C. ' 119,5 and therefore, claims 30, 48, 59 and
60 are anticipated by Hannah,6 which Adescribes the material in crystalline form . . . with
a melting point of 273E - 275E.@ Answer, 21st page.
Nevertheless, we agree with appellants that Hannah Ais not prior art to
Appellants= invention@ for the reasons set forth in detail on pages 3-5 and 16 of the
Reply Brief. The rejection of claims 30, 48, 59 and 60 over Hannah is reversed.
5 GB 8322199, filed August 18, 1983; GB 8325271, filed September 21, 1984.
6 U.S. Patent No. 4,845,084, filed January 26, 1984.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007