Appeal No. 95-4665
Application No. 08/101,111
1994, Paper No. 8). The appeal of claim 4, the only other
claim in this application, has been withdrawn by appellants
(Brief, page 1).
According to appellants, the invention is directed to a
technique for recovering diisopropyl ether (DIPE) from a
reaction effluent stream produced by the hydration of an
olefinic feedstock (Brief, pages 1-3). Claim 1 is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is attached
as an Appendix to this decision.
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Harandi et al. (Harandi) 5,113,024 May 12,
1992
Beech, Jr. et al. (Beech) 5,138,102 Aug. 11,
1992
Claims 1 through 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Beech in view of Harandi (Answer, page
3). We reverse this rejection for reasons which follow.2
OPINION
2The final rejection of claims 1 through 4 under the
first and second paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 112 has been
overcome by the amendment after the final rejection (see the
amendment dated Oct. 20, 1994, Paper No. 7, and the Advisory
Action dated Nov. 17, 1994, Paper No. 8).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007