Appeal No. 2001-1947
Application 08/333,202
investigations with a purified substance (66 ppm total aloe emodin residue) and with
high-purity rhein provided negative results.” Declaration, page 2.
The examiner responds to the Grimminger Declaration evidence, arguing, “based
on the assumption that applicant is right and the compound taught by Friedmann was
made by Proter, the examiner points to the article by Neuman, in Drugs of the Future
wherein, it is stated that pharmatoxicologic tests using DAR[2] produced by Proter
showed an absence of side effects, mutagenic properties and of peri and post-natal
toxicity. (Neumann [sic], page 446).” Answer, page 5.
The examiner further argues that Dr. Grimminger states that the “second method
referred to by Neuman in Drugs of the Future[3] yields a DAR having greater than 1000
ppm aloe-emodin content...” Answer, pages 5-6. The examiner finds that “applicant
has made no reference to the other process disclosed by the article [Neuman].”
Answer, page 6. We disagree.
The first (other) process of synthesis of acetylrhein mentioned in Neuman is that
of oxidation of acetylbarbaloin. Dr. Grimminger has indicated in paragraph 6 of his
Declaration that reference 44 attached to the Declaration describes a process of
2 DAR is an abbreviation for diacetylrhein.
3 The second method of synthesis of diacetylrhein indicated in Neuman is
acetylation of rhein.
4 “Experiments on the Constitution of the Aloins Part I,” by Robert Robinson and
John Lionel Simonsen (Declaration, exhibit 4).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007