The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 26
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte JOHN ROBERT MANSFIELD DALES
______________
Appeal No. 2004-0245
Application 09/265,926
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, WALTZ and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the examiner finally
rejecting claims 5 through 7, 10 through 14 and 21, the only claims in the application. The
examiner has withdrawn the ground of rejection with respect to claims 14 and 21 (answer, pages
2 and 6). Thus, claims 5 through 7 and 10 through 13 remain for consideration on appeal.
Claim 10, a copy of which taken from appellant’s brief is appended to this decision, is
illustrative of the process claims on appeal. Claim 5, the sole product claim on appeal, reads:
5. 2-amino-6-chloro-9-(methyl-2-carbomethoxybutanoate-4-yl)purine.
The appealed process claims 6, 7 and 10 through 13, as represented by claim 10, are
drawn to process schemes comprising sequences of the stated reactions for synthesizing purine
derivatives falling within formula (A), which encompasses the known nucleoside analogue
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007