Appeal No. 2002-0440
Application 09/113,547
Also, the examiner has not provided evidence or technical
reasoning which shows that Feist’s disclosure that there is phase
formation and separation of the phases in example 11 prior to
distillation, wherein the alcohol is n-propanol, but that there
is only “strong turbidity (phase formation)” in example 10,
wherein the alcohol is ethanol and the entire reaction product is
distilled, would have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the
art that the strong turbidity in example 10 is sufficient phase
formation for such a person to separate the phases before
distillation rather than distilling the entire reaction product
as did Feist. Likewise, the examiner has not established that
the teaching of forming “strong turbidity (phase formation)” in
Feist’s example 10 would have led one of ordinary skill in the
art to separate, as argued by the examiner (answer, pages 4-5
and 7), the phases in Braun’s example 11 (which is the same as
Feist’s example 1) wherein the alcohol is 2,2,2-trifluoroethanol.
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007