Appeal No. 94-0898 Application No. 07/785,644 In order to simplify the issues in this appeal, appellants ask us to focus our attention on the so-called Anegative teaching@ of Blytas. In doing so, we find that appellant=s arguments are unpersuasive since we are not convinced that Blytas contains an unequivocal negative teaching of effectiveness with regard to acac for the following reasons: The results reported by Blytas in Table 1 and the disclosure relating to those results, as interpreted by appellants, are ambiguous and somewhat inconsistent with the professed purpose of Blytas= invention. On the one hand, Blytas states that Apalladium was not extracted in these experiments@. On the other hand, Blytas states that Athe extractants tested were relatively inefficient for palladium recovery@, and not that they are totally ineffective. Moreover, Blytas does indicate that both acac and a hot water treatment (Blytas= invention) each appears to Ainhibit or remove a deleterious agent present in the polymer@. Further discussion by Blytas appear to suggest that the so-called deleterious agent might be HPd(CN)3, a palladium- containing acid. This discussion appears to suggest that at least some palladium is removed by acac as well as by hot water treatment, notwithstanding the results reported in the Table. In addition, the Table (Example 2) appears to show that Blytas= own 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007