Appeal No. 2006-2428 Page 14
Application No. 10/362,500
routinely optimized the concentration of SO2 to arrive at the claimed amount, the
examiner in effect concedes that the claimed concentration is different than the
concentration disclosed in the reference. If the claimed concentration of SO2 is different
than the concentration used by Uneme, the reference does not disclose this limitation.
Moreover, in reviewing the reference, we do not see where Uneme describes the
process of claim 4. As noted supra, Uneme states that the chlorinating agent can be
used in an amount of 1-1.5 equivalents based on the amount of compound (II), and that
“an excess amount (2-10 equivalents) may also be used as required.” Column 3, lines
61-64. Thus, when Uneme uses sulfuryl chloride as the chlorinating agent, the SO2
dissociating therefrom is present in the reaction medium in a molar amount at least
equal to the molar amount of compound (II). This amount of is much more than the
1-50 mol % recited in claim 4. We therefore reverse the examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claim 4 over Uneme.
To summarize, we agree that Uneme inherently describes the presence of SO2 in
a catalytic amount in the chlorinating step of converting compound (II) to compound (III).
However, we do not agree that Uneme describes the use of acetonitrile in the
chlorinating step, nor do we agree that Uneme describes the use of SO2 in an amount
of from 1-50 mol %, based on the starting material of formula (II), in the chlorinating
step. We therefore affirm the examiner’s anticipation rejection with respect to claim 1
and reverse it with respect to claims 2 and 4. Claims 3, 5 and 6 fall with claim 1.
3. Obviousness
The examiner also rejected claims 1-6 as being obvious over Uneme. Answer,
pages 3-5. The examiner argues that because sulfuryl chloride dissociates under
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007