Appeal No. 2006-2428 Page 7
Application No. 10/362,500
of SO2 in excess of a catalytic amount. Therefore, a reaction in the presence of at least
a stoichiometric amount of SO2 meets this limitation of claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “[a] process according to claim 1, wherein the process step a) is
carried out in acetonitrile.”
Claim 4 recites “[a] process according to claim 1, wherein in process step a) SO2
is used in an amount of from 1 mol % to 50 mol %, based on the starting material of
formula (II).”
2. Anticipation
The examiner has rejected claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Uneme.2
The examiner points out that Uneme teaches “a process of making compounds
of formula XIII (same as instant formula I) wherein a compound of formula (II) is reacted
with a chlorinating agent to produce a compound of formula I (same as instant III),
which is reacted with a compound of formula XII (same as instant IV) to form a
compound of formula (XIII).” Answer, page 3. The examiner also points out that “[t]he
chlorinating agent is chlorine or SO2Cl2, which dichlorinates [sic, dissociates?] to SO2
and Cl2 under the reaction condition[s].” Id.
Appellants argue that Uneme does not anticipate claim 1 because Uneme does
not disclose that the chlorinating step proceeds in the presence of a catalytic amount of
SO2. Appeal Brief, pages 3-5. Specifically, Appellants urge that the portions of Uneme
cited by the examiner in the final rejection do not teach chlorinating in the presence of
SO2, but instead relate to Uneme’s second (aminating) step, or to chlorinating with
2 Uneme et al., U.S. Patent 5,180,833, issued January 19, 1993.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007