Appeal No. 2003-0905
Application No. 09/781,426
and has a thioester substituents attached to the heterocyclic
ring.”
Upon our review of claims 1 through 18 of Steiner, we
observe that the N-linked sulfonamide recited in claim 1 of
Steiner is a compound of formula I as recited in claim 3 of
Steiner. Likewise, the heterocyclic nitrogen-containing
compound recited in appellants’ claim 36 is a compound of
formula I as recited in appellants’ claim 40. See the copy of
claim 40 in the attached Appendix.
The compound of claim 3 of Steiner is further detailed in
claim 6 of Steiner. We observe that claim 6 of Steiner includes
the same list of compounds as recited in appellants’ claim 43,
plus one additional compound.1 See the copy of claim 43 in the
attached Appendix.
In view of this identicalness between each set of claims,
we are unconvinced, as is the examiner, by appellants’ arguments
regarding “overlap.”
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the rejection.
1 We observe that the 3(para-Methoxyphenyl)-1-propylmercaptyl(2S)-N-(4-
toluenesulfonyl)pyrrolidine-2-carboxylate recited in appellants’ claim
43 is described on page 17, at lines 7 through 8 of appellants’
specification. On page 4 of an Amendment filed on February 6, 2002,
appellants amended claim 43 and the specification on page 17, by
replacing “α” with “4”, to correct a typographical error by which
compound 5 was repeated in place of compound 6. The copy of claim 43
in the attached Appendix reflects this amendment made.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007