Appeal No. 1996-3673
Application No. 08/139,893
compositions. We also observe that Moyer exemplifies the use
of 62.5 parts of “inhibitor” composition per million parts of
brine, an amount that is greater than appellants’ claimed
lower limit “scavenging amount” of 20 ppm. See Moyer at
column 3, lines 23-26 and appealed claim 19. Thus, we do not
agree with appellants’ argument that Moyer’s prior art
“inhibiting compositions” do not act as hydrogen sulfide
scavengers.
Appellants are correct in stressing that none of the
relied upon references, including Moyer, discloses a reaction
product as defined in the appealed claims. As belatedly
mentioned in their reply brief, appellants admit that Moyer
does state that his invention contemplates reaction products
of “amines and amino-reactive compounds” with formaldehyde.
See column 6, lines 2-4 of Moyer. However, Moyer does not
expressly describe or exemplify an alkylenepolyamine as
defined by appellants’ claims as an organic compound
containing “at least one amino-reactive group”, much less that
an alkylenepolyamine/formaldehyde reaction product would
provide any particular advantage in his invention. Looked at
in a light most favorable to the examiner, it might be argued
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007