Appeal No. 2003-0897 Page 7
Application No. 09/640,796
(Paper No. 17, page 12, first paragraph). See Appendix E attached to applicants'
Appeal Brief.1
On these facts, we find that omitting the step of converting a dialdehyde having
formula (2) into its corresponding acetal-protected aldehyde having formula (3) does not
run afoul of the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Accordingly, the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 5 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, is reversed.
REVERSED
)
Sherman D. Winters )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Demetra J. Mills )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
Eric Grimes )
Administrative Patent Judge )
1 As stated by the examiner, "[i]t is acknowledged that products of formula 3 are
known" (Paper No. 18, page 13, line 1).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007