Appeal No. 1997-4336
Application No. 08/279,317
223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Indeed, as pointed out
by the appellants (reply brief, page 4), Sander appears to
suggest that the chlorinated hydrocarbons should be added to
the pentane to maximize the amount of polyolefin in the
solution because these solvents are “very good solvents for
the polyolefin.” (Column 4, lines 36-39.) For these reasons,
we reverse the examiner’s obviousness rejection on this
ground.
Finally, the examiner also held that the subject matter
of the appealed claims would have been prima facie obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art because Sander teaches at
column 4, lines 54 through 70 that “a homogeneous solution
which contains pentane and appellants’ instantly claimed polar
solvents, specifically methanol, isopropanol and n-hexanol”
may be used. (Examiner’s answer, pages 7-8.) We note,
however, that the polar solvents described at column 4, lines
63 and 64 are “non-solvents (precipitating agents).” In the
invention recited in appealed claim 20, the polar solvents are
true co-solvents, not precipitating agents. We therefore also
reverse this ground of rejection.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007