Appeal No. 95-4721
Application No. 08/128,332
in the presence of an organic solvent like N-methylpyrrolidone
(column 1, lines 44-48).
Appellants do not present any substantive argument that
refutes the prima facie case of obviousness based on Dix.
Rather, although appellants state a disagreement "with the
underlying rejections based on obviousness" (page 5 of
principal Brief), appellants rely upon a declaration by Dr.
Olof Walquist, one of the present inventors, executed March 8,
1994, as evidence of unexpected and superior results (page 5
of principal Brief, last paragraph). According to appellants,
the declaration demonstrates that the closest prior art
process (Run No. 1 of Dix) gives only a 6.9% yield, while
working Example 1 of the present specification gives a 51.3%
yield. According to the declarant, "[t]his is indeed
surprising and absolutely unexpected" (page 2 of declaration,
last sentence).
Our review of the declaration evidence leads us to the
same conclusion as that reached by the examiner, i.e., the
declaration is not sufficiently probative of nonobviousness to
outweigh the evidence of obviousness represented by the Dix
disclosure. First, we agree with the examiner that the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007