Appeal No. 95-3845
Application 08/132,736
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to have used aryloxy groups with substitutents such
as halogens or alkyl groups in the catalyst system
of Tsutsui et al. because such substituted aryloxy
groups fit the general teaching. Any C6 to C20
aryloxy group (substituted of unsubstituted) would
be expected to function equivalently because of
their similar structures.
Appellants’ specification (page 2, lines 25-26) states
that alkyl groups are electron donating groups rather than
electron withdrawing groups, and the examiner has provided no
evidence to the contrary. Thus, the record indicates that
even if the aryloxy groups disclosed by Tsutsui were
substituted with alkyl groups as argued by the examiner
(answer, page 5), appellants’ claimed invention would not be
produced.
As for the examiner’s statement that substituted and
unsubstituted aryloxy groups would be expected to function
similarly because of their similar structures, a predecessor
of our reviewing court has stated that “[w]hen the PTO seeks
to rely upon a chemical theory, in establishing a prima facie
case of obviousness, it must provide evidentiary support for
the existence and meaning of that theory. [citation omitted]
The known structural relationship between adjacent homologs,
4-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007