Appeal No. 95-4575
Application No. 08/097,063
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
McAskie 4,853,233 Aug. 1, 1989
Behan et al. (Behan) 5,204,023 Apr. 20, 1993
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over McAskie in view of Behan. It is the
examiner’s basic position that “it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in this art to include/incorporate the amine
compound chemical trapping agent disclosed in Behan . . . in the
reactive/reaction mixture of McAskie” (Answer, page 4).
We cannot sustain this rejection.
As correctly pointed out by the appellants, Behan teaches
removing or reducing unpleasant malodors arising from the
presence of aldehydic materials in products such as edible fats
by adding thereto a malodor counteractant which comprises the
reaction product of an amine and an organoleptically acceptable
aldehyde. This reaction product constitutes a Schiff’s base.
Thus, even if the teachings of McAskie and Behan were combined in
the manner proposed by the examiner, the resulting process would
include as an admixture of reactive ingredients a Schiff’s base
rather than a primary amine as required by the appealed claims.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007