Appeal No. 95-0277
Application 08/002,563
elementary claim construction, appealed claim 6 clearly requires
the formation of “additional” MTBE. The examiner has steadfastly
refused to consider this matter even though appellants have
pointed to this claim limitation and argued that the formation of
MTBE was an unexpected result. Accordingly, in the absence of
evidence and/or scientific reasoning establishing that one of
ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably expected the
formation of additional MTBE under the reaction conditions
specified in appealed claim 6, we are left with the inference
that Sanderson would not have suggested the claimed invention as
a whole to one of ordinary skill in this art in the absence of
appellants’ specification.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
Reversed
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
CHUNG K. PAK ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
- 3
-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007