Appeal No. 2006-0881
Application No. 09/928,139
Miller et al. (Miller ‘261) 4,254,261 Mar. 3, 1981
Zeitlin et al. (Zeitlin) 5,733,756 Mar. 31, 1998
Zavareh 6,121,453 Sep. 19, 2000
Harris et al. (Harris) US 6,242,464 B1 June 5, 1002
Miller et al. (Miller), “Racemization of 6-oxo-2-piperidine-carboxylic acid enantiomers,”
Chemical Abstracts 94 :47148 (1981)
Armstrong et al. (Armstrong), “Separation of Drug Stereoisomers by the Formation of
ß-Cyclodextrin Inclusion Complexes,” Science, Vol. 232, pages 1132-1135 (1986)
Barry et al. (Barry), “Racemization of .alpha.-amino acid esters by aliphatic ketones in the
presence of carboxylic acids,” Chemical Abstracts 119:73084 (1993)
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.§ 112, first paragraph, “for lack of description and
enablement” (answer, page 6).
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over
Zeitlin or Armstrong in view of the Miller Chemical Abstracts, the Barry Chemical Abstracts or
Miller ‘261.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the prior art
referred to immediately above and further in view of Harris.
Finally, claims 1-8 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Zavareh ‘453 in view of the Miller
Chemical Abstracts, the Barry Chemical Abstracts, or Miller ‘261 and further in view of Harris.
(Footnote, continued)
Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to grant the appellants’ request on page 6 of the reply brief that these
newly cited references not be considered by the Board. It follows that we have not considered and will not further
comment upon these newly cited references in our resolution of the subject appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007