Ex Parte Anelli et al - Page 6


               Appeal No. 2006-2378                                                                           Page 6                   
               Application No. 10/433,388                                                                                              

               discusses the fact that the products “obtained through amidation of the 5-nitro-1,3-                                    
               benzenedicarboxylic acid alkyl esters” suffer from “characteristic instability.”  Page 4                                
               then discusses the fact that “direct amidation of a dialkyl ester of 5-amino-1,3-                                       
               benzenedicarboxylic acid” yields an intermediate product having “no stability problems.”                                
                       Changing the order of steps to avoid the use of an unstable intermediate is                                     
               central to the invention.  Thus, in our view, the order of the steps is a critical limitation.                          
               The examiner’s reliance solely on precedent to meet this critical limitation therefore                                  
               contravenes MPEP § 2144.04.                                                                                             
                       The examiner also has not followed the requirement of MPEP § 2144.04,                                           
               emphasized supra, that a court’s rationale for an obviousness holding may be used “if                                   
               the facts in a prior legal decision are sufficiently similar to those in an application under                           
               examination.”  In the pending rejection, the examiner merely noted that the sequence of                                 
               steps had been changed, and then cited Rubin without addressing whether the facts in                                    
               the Rubin decision were similar to those of the instant case.                                                           
                       MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(C) summarizes the holding in Rubin as follows:                                               
                       [A] prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet                                        
                       wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter                                        
                       impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie                                        
                       obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by                                             
                       reversing the order of the prior art process steps.                                                             
                       In our view, combining non-reactive ingredients to create a laminated sheet, as                                 
               performed in Rubin, is significantly different from performing a series of chemical                                     
               reactions, each of which sequentially modifies a chemical compound, as recited in the                                   
               present claims.  One of ordinary skill would have expected the same product to result                                   
               from the process in Rubin regardless of the order of steps, but that same expectation                                   





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007