Appeal No. 2001-0754
Application 09/040,276
expected hydrogen peroxide to react with the piperidiene ring
in a different manner.
For the above reasons we find that the examiner has not
set forth a factual basis which is sufficient to support a
conclusion of prima facie obviousness of the process recited
in the appellant’s claim 1.
Claim 16
The examiner has not provided evidence that the compound
recited in claim 16, which the appellant states is capable of
functioning as a redox catalyst (specification, page 4, line
3), was known in the art. Also, as discussed above regarding
the rejection of claim 1, the examiner has not established
that it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to make that compound.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Büschken and over EP ‘667 are reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007