Appeal 2007-2985
Application 010/669,978
1 peroxide and (2) how to add a proper amount of stabilizer depending on the
2 circumstances.
3 The fact that Haas is interested in an epoxidation catalyst and Tsao is
4 concerned with solutions to clean lenses does not help Haas's case. The fact
5 is that Tsao renders obvious "the objective reach" of claim 1. KSR, 127
6 S.Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Stated in other terms, claim 1 is so
7 broad that it includes subject matter which would have been obvious even if
8 an argument might be made that it also covers subject matter which might
9 not have been obvious. In re Muchmore, 433 F.2d 824, 167 USPQ 681
10 (CCPA 1970) (claims which include obvious subject matter and non-obvious
11 subject matter are not patentable under § 103).
12 Claims 2-8
13 Claims 2-8 stand or fall with claim 1 because like claim 1 they do not
14 require the presence of an alkali metal, an alkaline earth metal or an amine.
15 Claim 8, while identifying amines, does not require that they be
16 present—only that if they are present then the amine is one of the amines set
17 out in claim 8.
18 Claims 9-15
19 These claims require the presence of a base having a pkB of at
20 least 4.5.
21 The base can be ammonia. See claims 14-15.
22 Tsao is said by Haas not to describe the use of ammonia.
23 On this particular record, it does not matter whether Haas describes
24 the use of ammonia.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013