Appeal No. 2006-2428 Page 18
Application No. 10/362,500
dichloromethane, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane.” Column 3, lines 55-60. Uneme does
not expressly suggest using acetonitrile as the solvent in the chlorinating step.
Rühter teaches that, in the preparation of fused pyrimidine compounds, “a
chlorination is preferably carried out . . . with a mineral acid chloride such as sulfuryl
chloride . . . in an inert solvent such as acetonitrile, dichloromethane, chloroform,
tetrachloromethane or 1,2-dichloroethane.” Column 37, lines 48-54 (emphasis added).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to carry out the chlorinating step of Uneme’s process using
acetonitrile as the solvent. The references would have suggested doing so because
Uneme teaches that the reaction should be carried out in an inert solvent, and Rühter
teaches that acetonitrile (as well as the chlorinated hydrocarbons expressly recited by
Uneme) is an inert solvent suitable for use in chlorination reactions using sulfuryl
chloride.
Summary
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 as being anticipated by and
obvious over Uneme. We reverse the anticipation and obviousness rejection of claim 4
over Uneme. We reverse the rejection of claim 2 as anticipated, vacate the rejection of
claim 2 as obvious, and enter a new rejection of claim 2.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007