Appeal No. 1995-4855
Application No. 08/146,334
1998 (hereafter “Decision”), affirming the rejection of claims
1 through 8 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Leicester in view of Union Carbide and Belf.2
Appellants request rehearing based on four points.
Appellants’ first point is that the Board misapprehended the
teaching of U.S. Patent No. 3,632,834 (Christoph) as it
relates to temperature and ash content (Request, page 1).
Specifically, appellants argue that the production of two-
carbon compounds containing no hydrogen, as in Christoph, is
significantly different from the production of a single carbon
compound containing hydrogen as recited in the claims on
appeal, and one of ordinary skill in the art would readily
recognize that the temperature range disclosed by Christoph
would not necessarily be suitable for the claimed process
(Request, page 2). Appellants also argue that the Decision
erroneously equates alkali metal content with ash content and
submits U.S. Patent No. 5,136,113 (Rao) as evidence that the
2Appellants have also submitted a "Supplement to Request
for Rehearing Under 37 C.F.R. 1.197(b)", dated Feb. 16, 1999,
Paper No. 21, which updates the status of S.N. 08/458,604 as
noted in the "Related Appeal" section of the Request. It is
now noted that S.N. 08/458,604 has issued as U.S. Patent
5,955,637 on Sept. 21, 1999.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007