Appeal No. 95-2331
Application No. 08/127,854
OPINION
The examiner is clearly incorrect in stating that “[t]he
sole difference between the claimed process and the [Couteau]
reference process is in terms of solvent” (Answer, page 3).
Instead, as correctly argued by the appellants in their Brief,
the here claimed process differs from patentee's process in
terms of catalyst as well as solvent. Moreover, for the
reasons well stated by the appellants in their Brief, the
applied prior art including the Japanese '456 and Epstein
references would not have suggested modifying the process of
Couteau so as to utilize a solvent and catalyst of the type
here claimed.
In summary, for the reasons set forth above and in the
Brief, the reference evidence adduced by the examiner fails to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. § 103 in relation to the subject matter defined
by appealed claim 1 which is the sole independent claim before
us. It follows that we cannot sustain the examiner's § 103
rejection of claims 1 through 9 as being unpatentable over
Couteau in view of Japanese '456 and Epstein.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007