Appeal No. 94-2033
Application No. 07/982,141
not acknowledge or admit that all aromatic amine precursors are
contaminated with sulfur, or that the nitro aromatic reactants
disclosed by Lentz are contaminated with sulfur. On the
contrary, appellant states that
[i]n the Lentz et al. application [now U.S. Patent No.
4,929,737] there is no disclosure of sulfur-
contaminated reactants. [Specification, page 11, lines
15 through 17].
All in all, we believe that the previous merits panel (1)
misinterpreted the acknowledged state of the prior art in
appellant's specification, and (2) relied on that interpretation
in affirming the rejection of the claimed method under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 in view of the combined disclosures of Lentz, Horner and
Petro.
On this record, claims 1 through 13 define a novel
combination of steps, namely, the use of a starting material
containing a nitro aromatic compound and sulfur, and the use of a
chromium-containing Raney cobalt catalyst. Furthermore, on this
record, the claimed method would not have been obvious within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the cited references provide
no reason, suggestion, or motivation to use appellant's chromium-
containing Raney cobalt catalyst as a solution to the problem of
sulfur poisoning. The cited prior art would not have led a
person having ordinary skill to select appellant's chromium-
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007