Appeal No. 95-2950
Application No. 07/855,127
(Reply Brief, page 5) which is supported by the accepted
dictionary definition of dodecene (e.g., see Hawley's
Condensed Chemical Dictionary, 11th edition) . 4
In light of the foregoing, we cannot sustain either the
§ 102 rejection of claims 70-72, 76, 88-93 and 99 as being
anticipated by Biresaw or the § 102 rejection of claims 66-72,
87-93 and 99 as being anticipated by Laemmle.
The § 103 Rejections
On the record of this appeal, the examiner has failed to
carry her burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter defined by the
appealed claims.
For example, the answers contain no basis for concluding
that an artisan with ordinary skill, in the absence of
hindsight, would have modified the previously discussed
4With this argument in mind, we feel obliged to point
out that the previously discussed feature involving at least
three tertiary carbon atoms is not explicitly recited in
appealed independent claim 99 nor inherently required by the
claim 99 term “2-dodecenyl”. Nevertheless, it is clear to us
that neither Biresaw nor Laemmle expressly or inherently
discloses the monoisobutyl-2-dodecenyl succinate surfactant
recited in this claim.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007