Appeal No. 2006-2247
Reexamination Nos. 90/006,554 and 90/006,894
1 38. With respect to separately argued claim 5, the examiner found that the
2 recited range for the catalyst does not significantly deviate from the
3 range disclosed in Witman. (Examiner’s Answer at 7.)
4 39. The examiner also found that Dunn discloses a process for preparing
5 polyvinylpyridine N-oxides by oxidizing polyvinylpyridine in the
6 presence of an organic peracid oxidizing agent. (Examiner’s Answer
7 at 4.)
8 40. Based on the collective teachings of these references, examiner held
9 that “[t]he oxidation of polyvinylpyridine (a polymer containing
10 tertiary amine groups) is within the generic teaching of Witman” and
11 that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
12 use the process of Witman to oxidize [the] polyvinylpyridine shown in
13 Dunn thus avoiding the problems and expense of handling peracids as
14 mentioned in Witman at column 1, lines 34+.” (Examiner’s Answer
15 at 4-5.)
16 41. The examiner further found that the Declaration of Dieter Boeckh,
17 Ph.D, dated November 5, 2003 is insufficient to rebut the prima facie
18 case of obviousness. (Examiner’s Answer at 5.)
19 42. Specifically, the examiner held that the appellant’s allegation of
20 unexpected results in terms of the use of greater amounts of water
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007