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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007