Appeal No. 94-3976
Application 07/891,484
appellants, Clay, supra, the combined teachings thereof must
still have suggested the claimed invention to one of ordinary
skill in this art. Keller, supra. We observe that in Blum, the
“halogen containing ambient” is applied in the outer cylinder
wall portion of the apparatus in Blum (numeral 4 in fig.) at a
temperature of “about 800EC to about 1100EC” to react with
contaminate metals to form metal halides (col. 3). There is no
teaching in Morris which would have reasonably motivated one of
ordinary skill in the art to use oxalyl chloride in place of
hydrogen chloride or chlorinated hydrocarbons disclosed in Blum
to be useful in the “gas mixture suitable of providing halogen at
the required temperature” in the process of that reference.
Indeed, Morris does not disclose that oxalyl chloride is useful
at temperatures over 550EC (col. 3, lines 68-71), which
temperature range is below the temperature range specified by
Blum. We find no other evidence or scientific reasoning in the
record which supports the examiner’s allegation that since Morris
discloses that oxalyl chloride forms “volatile metal chlorides at
even lower temperatures than those of Blum, ... confidence is
high it will be at least as effective a chlorinating agent at the
higher temperatures of Blum” (answer, page 5). Dow Chemical,
supra.
Accordingly, the record before us supports the inference
that the examiner relied on information gleaned from appellants’
disclosure in formulating the grounds of rejection on appeal.
See Dow Chemical, 837 F.2d at 473, 5 USPQ2d at 1532.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
Reversed
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007