Appeal 2006-2994
Application 09/753,495
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Norman US 4,431,524 Feb. 14, 1984
Chavet WO 97009281 Jan. 9, 1997
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 4, 6, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Norman.
2. Claims 7-9, 13, 16-22, 25-28, 31, 32, 34-36, and 39-42 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Norman in view of
WO ‘928.
3. Claims 25-28, 31, 32, 34-36, 41 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over WO ‘928.
We reverse as to all three grounds of rejection.
OPINION
Claims 4, 6, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Norman.
A reference is anticipatory within the meaning of § 102 if it discloses
each and every claim limitation either expressly or inherently. In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellants traverse the Examiner’s finding of anticipation on the basis that
Norman does not disclose the final two steps of “adding a phase transfer
catalyst” (e.g., ethylene glycol) and “removing contaminants” as recited in
claim 4 (Br. 9). More specifically, Appellants argue that Norman
completely removes the base compound prior to the addition of a glycol,
1 Specific citations are to the U.S. equivalent, U.S. Patent No. 6,072,065,
issued June 6, 2000 (“Chavet ‘065”).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013