Appeal No. 2001-1335
Application No. 08/843,582
its 7-epimer from ancistrocladus abbreviatus,” Phytochemistry,
Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 1307-1310 (1991).
Bringmann et al. (Bringmann I), “Ancistrobrevine B, the first
naphthylisoquinoline alkaloid with a 5,8'coupling site, and
related compounds from ancistrocladus abbreviatus,”
Phytochemistry, Vol. 31, No. 11, pp. 4011-4014 (1992).
Bringmann et al. (Bringmann IV), “Dioncophylline C from the roots
of triphyophyllum peltatum, the first 5,1'-coupled
dioncophyllaceae alkaloid,” Phytochemistry, Vol. 31, No. 11,
pp. 4019-4024 (1992).
Bringmann et al. (Bringmann VI), “A new atropisomeric
dioncophyllline A derivative from triphyophyllum peltatum,”
Planta Med., 59 Supplemental Issue (1993).
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Bringmann III.
Claims 28-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bringmann I or Bringmann II or Bringmann
IV in view of Sloan and Bundgaard, and claims 34-45 stand
correspondingly rejected as being unpatentable over these
references and further in view of Bringmann V and Bringmann VI
and Ruangrungsi.
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellants
and by the examiner concerning the above noted rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we cannot sustain any of the
rejections advanced by the examiner on this appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007