Appeal No. 94-0898
Application No. 07/785,644
lines 32-33). If Example No. 6 illustrates appellant=s
invention, the instant claims must embrace Arelatively
inefficient@ recovery of palladium, consistent with appellant=s
interpretation of the results reported by Blytas.
One more comment is in order. Even if we could agree with
appellants that Blytas clearly teaches away from the use of acac
to remove palladium from a polyketone, and we do not so agree, it
should be noted that the instant claims are broadly directed to
removal of AGroup VIII metal catalyst residues@, and not just to
removal of palladium. As indicated by Blytas (col. 1, lines 40-
42), metal catalysts falling within this category may include
cobalt or nickel as well as palladium. Appellants have given no
reason why any negative teaching regarding acac would have been
expected to be applicable with respect to Group VIII catalyst
residues in general, and not just to palladium.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the examiner is
affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007