Appeal No. 2001-1045 Page 2
Application No. 09/178,594
Discussion
The claims are directed to method for making 4-substituted azetidinone
derivatives, which are useful as synthetic intermediates of “carbapenem based
antimicrobial agents.” See the specification, page 1.
All of the claims subject to each rejection stand or fall together. Appeal
Brief, page 3. Claim 15 is the broadest claim subject to each rejection and
therefore we decide the issues on appeal based on representative claim 15.
Claim 15 is directed to a method of making a 4-substituted azetidinone derivative
by reacting an azetidinone derivative in the presence of either a copper
compound or zinc and a copper compound, with an ester having substituents
designated “X”, “Y”, and “R3”. The “X” and “Y” moieties are defined as members
of a large Markush group, alternatively substituted with substituents selected
from another large Markush group. R3 is defined as “a protective group [that is]
easily removed.”
The examiner rejected claims 15-19 “under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraphs 1
and 2, as the claimed invention is not described, or is not described in such full,
clear, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use
the same, and failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which applicant regards as his invention.” Examiner’s Answer, page 3.
The examiner states that “[f]ive issues arise,” all but one of which apply to all the
claims. Id.
Each of the “issues” discussed by the examiner appears to be a separate
ground of rejection under either the first or second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007