Appeal No. 2006-2428 Page 10
Application No. 10/362,500
in a catalytic amount. Specifically, Uneme states that “[t]he chlorinating agent is used
usually in an amount of 1-1.5 equivalents on the basis of the allyl isothiocyanate
derivative [II], but an excess amount (2-10 equivalents) may also be used as required.”
Column 3, lines 61-64. Therefore, when Uneme uses sulfuryl chloride as the
chlorinating agent, the SO2 dissociating therefrom is present in the reaction medium in
at least the same molar amount as compound (II).
As noted supra, Appellants’ 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).” Specification, page 8. Depending from claim 1, appealed claim 4 also
makes it clear that the term “catalytic amount” encompasses SO2 amounts ranging from
as low as 1 mol % to 50 mol % based the amount of compound (II).
Therefore, the amount of SO2 capable of catalyzing the chlorination conversion
of compound (II) to compound (III) is significantly less than the amount of SO2 present
in the reaction media described by Uneme. Because the SO2 inherently resulting from
Uneme’s use of sulfuryl chloride as chlorinating agent is present in an amount
significantly more than the amount required to catalyze the reaction converting
compound (II) to compound (III) in the presence of chlorine, the SO2 in Uneme’s
reaction is necessarily present in an amount sufficient to catalyze the reaction. That is,
Uneme’s chlorination reaction using sulfuryl chloride as the chlorinating agent
necessarily results in more than enough SO2 being present to catalyze the conversion
of compound (II) to compound (III).
Uneme therefore inherently discloses the presence of SO2 in a catalytic amount,
as required by claim 1. We therefore affirm the examiner’s rejection of that claims as
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007