Appeal No. 95-5126
Application No. 08/045,675
1 and 22 in conjunction with specification, pages 1 and 2.
The applied prior art, however, does not recognize the
importance
of employing the claimed weight ratio of a 3-hydrocarbyl-2,
5-diketopyrrolidine to a dimethyl ester of an aliphatic
phosphonic acid. The applied prior art is simply devoid of
any suggestion, much less appellant’s suggestion, for
employing the claimed weight ratio of a 3-hydrocarbyl-2, 5-
diketopyrrolidine to a dimethyl ester of an aliphatic
phosphonic acid. Accordingly,
we reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through
13, 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we conclude that
(1) the § 103 rejection of claims 14 through 21 is
sustained; and
(2) the § 103 rejection of claims 1 through 13, 22 and 23
is not sustained.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007