Appeal No. 2000-0639 Page 2
Application No. 08/537,560
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 5, which are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal, read as
follows:
1. A process for the preparation of 1-aryl-2-(1-imidazolyl) alkyl ethers and thioethers
comprising
(a) alpha brominating an aromatic or heterocyclic derivative under suitable
reaction conditions; and ,
(b) coupling the product of step (a) with an imidazolyl ethanol derivative under
suitable conditions.
5. A process for the preparation of tioconazole comprising
(a) alpha brominating 2-chloro-3-methylthiophene in the presence of a peroxide
and cyclohexane solvent, under suitable reaction conditions; and,
(b) contacting the product of step (a) with 1-(2,4-dichlorphenyl [sic])-2-(1-
imidazolyl)ethanol under suitable conditions.
THE PRIOR ART
In rejecting claims 1 through 17 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, the examiner does not rely on any prior art references.
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 through 17 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as not particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter
which applicants regard as their invention.1
1 As indicated in the Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 11), page 5, a previously entered rejection of claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, has been withdrawn, and claim 21 now stands allowed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007