Appeal No. 2006-2247
Reexamination Nos. 90/006,554 and 90/006,894
1 B. The Applied Prior Art References
2 17. The examiner relies on the following prior art references (United
3 States patents) as evidence of unpatentability:
4 Greenspan 2,624,655 Jan. 06, 1953
5 Witman 3,047,579 Jul. 31, 1962
6 Dunn et al. (Dunn) 3,159,611 Dec. 01, 1964
7 Watts 4,070,442 Jan. 24, 1978
8 Willard 4,362,706 Dec. 07, 1982
9 Hopkins et al. (Hopkins) 4,534,945 Aug. 13, 1985
10
11 C. The Rejection
12 18. Claims 1-6 of the ‘684 patent stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
13 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Witman and Dunn,
14 “optionally as evidenced by Watts, Greenspan, Hopkins, and
15 Willard.” (Examiner’s Answer at 3-7.)
16
17 D. The Prior Art Teachings
18 (1) Witman
19 19. Witman describes a process for preparing N-oxides of tertiary amines
20 by reacting the amines with hydrogen peroxide in the presence of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007