Appeal No. 95-3233
Application No. 08/094,477
examiner has failed to set forth objective evidence or
compelling reasoning that reasonably establishes that one of
ordinary skill in the art would be unable to practice the
claimed invention of feeding into the reaction zone a liquid
feed comprising propylene and a catalyst precursor at the
claimed Reynolds number. Accordingly, in the absence of such
evidence or reasoning, we are persuaded that one of ordinary
skill in the art would be able to attain the claimed Reynolds
number by adjusting the diameter of the feed tube or the
average velocity of the fluid feed (page 2 of Reply Brief of
February 17, 1995).
Appealed claims 10-13 and 3-6 also stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brady alone, Brady
in view of Kondo or Kondo in view of Brady.3
We concur with the examiner that the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the collective
teachings of Brady and Kondo. Appellants apparently do not
3Inasmuch as the rejections over the combined teachings
of Brady and Kondo subsume the rejection over Brady alone, we
will limit our discussion to the examiner's rejection of the
appealed claims over the collective teachings of Brady and
Kondo.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007