Appeal No. 2006-2247
Reexamination Nos. 90/006,554 and 90/006,894
1 with a corresponding decrease in the amount of acid, while achieving
2 high degrees of oxidation, is unpersuasive because Witman teaches
3 the use of water in the amount as claimed, the degree of conversion in
4 Witman is consistent with that reported in the patent under
5 reexamination, and the appealed claims do not limit the acid content.
6 (Examiner’s Answer at 5.)
7
8 F. The Appellant’s Position
9 43. The appellant’s position is that the examiner has not made out a prima
10 facie case of obviousness because the prior art teaches away from the
11 claimed invention and that, even if a prima facie case has been
12 established, it has been rebutted by evidence of unexpected results in
13 the form of declaration evidence. (Appeal brief at 7.)
14
15 G. Declaration Testimony of Dieter Boeckh
16 44. As evidence of unexpected results, the appellant relies heavily on the
17 declaration of Dieter Boeckh, Ph.D, dated November 5, 2003.
18 45. Dr. Boeckh is one of the named inventors of the ‘684 patent. (Boeckh
19 Declaration, ¶1.)
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007