Interference No. 103,675
obtained were purified and separated in the manner described in the
examples from the first filed Chen et al. application (CR 18-20, ¶'s
8-11). Kadow testified that the products were analyzed using high
field proton NMR and liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry and were
found to be a "mixture of two major compounds", specifically, a
mixture of "-F and cyclopropyl derivatives of taxol. It is argued that
the repeat of the examples in 1996 thus establish that the parent
application necessarily has examples directed to compounds within the
scope of counts 2, 3A and 4. The basis for this conclusion is founded
on the alleged fact that each peak from the NMR spectroscopy performed
in the parent applications were subsequently "found" in NMR's of
examples repeated in 1996 (CR 20, 21, ¶12).
It is argued by Chen et al. that the description in the
earlier filed applications of mixtures of "- and ß-fluorotaxols and
baccatin III's "describes" the compounds of the counts because, based
on the work of Kadow and others, it was later proven that the
compounds prepared were not mixtures of fluorine epimers but
cyclopropyl derivatives. While Chen et al.'s petition to withdraw from
issue filed in their first filed application evidences Chen et al.'s
belief that they were mistaken in the identification of the nature of
the products actually obtained by the procedures set forth in their
application, Chen et al. have not favored the record either with the
30
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007