Appeal No. 2000-0639 Page 3
Application No. 08/537,560
DELIBERATIONS
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation and review of the
instant specification, including all of the appealed claims; the Appeal Brief (Paper
No. 10); and the Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 11). Having carefully reviewed those
materials, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 5 through 17 and 20. We affirm
the rejection of claims 1 through 4.
CLAIMS 5 THROUGH 17 AND 20
We agree with appellants that claims 5 through 17 and 20 set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity.
These claims are drawn to a process for preparing tioconazole (claims 5 through
17) and to “[t]ioconazole produced by the process of claim 5” (claim 20). Independent
claim 5 begins with a specific starting material, namely, 2-chloro-3-methyl-thiophene. In
step (a) of claim 5, appellants recite alpha brominating that starting material “in the
presence of a peroxide and cyclohexane solvent, under suitable reaction conditions.”
This constitutes a Wohl-Ziegler bromination (specification, page 5, line 3). In step (b) of
claim 5, appellants recite “contacting the product of step (a) [2-chloro-3-bromomethyl-
thiophene] with 1-(2,4-dichlorphenyl [sic])-2-(1-imidazolyl)ethanol under suitable
reaction conditions.”
These claims reasonably apprise those skilled in the art what is claimed; and
persons skilled in the art would understand what is claimed. Appellants’ process begins
with specific starting materials and reagents, spelled out in the claims, and ends with
the preparation of a specific final product. Although the examiner does not favor the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007