Ex parte PAUL K. HANNA, et al. - Page 5

          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              


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007