Appeal 2007-0549
Application 10/399,312
Duennenberger (Duennenberger ‘545) US 2,842,545 Jul. 8, 1958
Duennenberger (Duennenberger ‘564) US 2,995,564 Aug. 8, 1961
Liechti US 3,407,196 Oct. 22, 1968
Erckel US 4,282,355 Aug. 4, 1981
Schreiber US 4,327,209 Apr. 27, 1982
Goda EP 0 719 774 A1 Jul. 3, 1996
Maeder (as translated) CH 439 292 Dec. 15, 1967
2. OBVIOUSNESS
Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Duennenberger ‘545, Schreiber, Maeder, Liechti, Goda, and Duennenberger
‘564, “each taken alone or in combination of each other, and each in view
of” Erckel (Answer 4-5).2
The Examiner cites each of the first six references as teaching
processes of preparing compounds of formula (1) “by reacting an amino-
benzene compound (e.g., 2-aminophenol) with a dicarboxylic acid (e.g.,
stilbene-4,4'-dicarboxylic acid or thiophene-2,5-dicarboxylic acid) in the
presence of an acidic catalyst (e.g., boric acid)” (Answer 5-6).
The Examiner concedes that “the prior art does not teach
Appellant[s’] N-methylpyrrolidone or N,N-dimethylacetamide. The prior art
teaches N,N-dimethylformamide instead in the reaction[;] see, for example,
Liechti et al. (column 2, lines 47-49)” (id. at 6-7).
To meet this limitation, the Examiner cites Erckel as “teach[ing] a
process of making bis-benzazolyl compounds by reacting an amino-benzene
compound (e.g., 2-aminophenol) with a carboxylic acid in the presence of an
acidic catalyst (e.g., boric acid)” (id. at 7). The Examiner points out that
2 Examiner’s Answer mailed August 24, 2006.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013