Appeal No. 2006-2428 Page 6
Application No. 10/362,500
wherein R1, R2, Y, Z and Q are as defined hereinbefore for the compound of
formula (I);
in which process the chlorination according to process step a) is performed using
chlorine in the presence of a catalytic amount of SO2.
Thus, claim 1 is directed to a process of preparing a thiazole derivative of formula
(I). The process comprises two steps. In step a), a compound of formula (II) is reacted
with chlorine “in the presence of a catalytic amount of SO2” to produce a compound of
formula (III). In step b), the compound of formula (III) is reacted with a compound of
formula (IV) to yield the thiazole derivative of formula (I).
“It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application are
to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and
that claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted
by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,1548, 218 USPQ 385,
388 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citation omitted).
Claim 1 states that the chlorination step takes place “in the presence of a
catalytic amount of SO2.” The specification states that “[c]atalytic amounts [of SO2] are
to be understood as less-than-stoichiometric amounts based on the starting material of
formula (II).” Page 8.
Claim 1 does not recite any upper limit for the amount of SO2 that can be present
while the chlorination reaction takes place. Therefore, we interpret the claim to require
that the reaction takes place in the presence of at least a less-than-stoichiometric
amount of SO2. This interpretation gives the claim language its broadest reasonable
interpretation: a reaction that takes place in the presence of a stoichiometric amount of
SO2 takes place both in the presence of a catalytic amount of SO2 and in the presence
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007