Appeal No. 2002-0404
Application No. 08/859,143
Nevertheless, the examiner held that the differences between the
claimed invention and the prior art are “of no significance” and
that the subject matter of the appealed claims would have been
prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “because
Dougherty et al. teach that C1-C8 alkyl acrylates can be refined
using the same material distillation refining process.” (Id. at
pages 4-5.)
With regard to the product claims, the examiner admits that
Dougherty does not describe the purity levels as recited in
appealed claim 11. (Id. at page 4.) It is the examiner’s
position, however, that one of ordinary skill in the art “would
have expected the final product of Dougherty et al. to have a
similar purity as the product of the presently claimed
invention.” (Id. at page 4.)
We disagree with the examiner’s analysis and conclusion.
Contrary to the examiner’s allegation, the differences between
the processes recited in the appealed claims and Dougherty’s
process are significant.2 Despite these significant differences,
the examiner does not identify any teaching, motivation, or
suggestion in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary
2 Because the differences are significant, there is no expectation that
the products resulting from the prior art process and the claimed process
would be similar in terms of purity.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007