0
Interference 105,039 Paper No. 28
Andree v. Klintz Page 18
original claim 1 and in claim 53 are shown in parallel in the
following table:
Klintz meta-Substituents M
Original Claim 1 Claim 53
-C (Re) =X5
- C (Re) (X'R9) (X4 R 7)
- CH (Re) -CH (R9) -CO -R10 - CH (Re) - CH (R9) -CO - R'0
-C (Re) =C (R9) -CO-R10 -C (Re) =C (R) -CO-R10
-C (Re) =C (R9) -CN -C (Re) =C (R9) -CN
-C (Re) =C (R9) -CH,-CO-R10
C (Re) =C (R9) -C (R11) =C (R 12) -CO-R10
-C(R8)=C(R9)-CH2-CH(R9)-CO-R1'
Of the eight possible sets of W substituents listed in original
claim 1, only three, which are either substituted ethyl or
ethenyl groups, remain in claim 58. Furthermore, comparison of
claim 53 and original claim 1 shows that the definitions of the
substituents Re, R', and R" in claim 53 constitute a very small
subset of those recited in original claim 1. For example, in
claim 53, Re is limited to hydrogen or optionally fluorine-,
chlorine-, or Cj- C, -alkoxy- substituted C,-C,-alkyl while in
original claim 1, Re may be hydrogen, cyano, C.-C6-alky', C2_C,_
alkenyl, C,-C.-alkynyl, Cl-C6-haloalkyl, C3-C,-cycloalkyl, C1_C6_
alkoxy-C,-C6-alkyl, or Cl-C,-alkoxycarbonyl. The italicized
groups indicate the source of overlap with Re in claim 53. The
substituent R9 is also much more limited, and the substituent R"
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007