Appeal No. 96-3862
Application No. 08/189,861
We note that appellants apparently agree with the
examiner's application of Braslaw to the claimed process
including the first reaction step with the exception,
according to appellants, that Braslaw does not disclose the
alternative second claimed reactor step (a) . However, 2
appellants have not convincingly pointed out how the claimed
process, including the second lower temperature reaction step,
patentably differs from the rotating film evaporation step of
Braslaw that is being relied upon by the examiner.
We agree with the examiner's determination that some
further reaction would have been reasonably expected to occur
during the evaporation step of Braslaw. In this regard,
Braslaw employs a temperature within the range claimed by
appellants for the further reaction and discusses "preferred
reaction conditions" (column 3, lines 37 and 38) as indicated
above. Moreover, we note that claim 1 uses open "comprising"
language so as not to exclude other materials, acts or steps,
and claim 1 does not require any particular pressure, time,
2We again note that the examiner has withdrawn the
rejection as to claim 6 which claim specifies the second step
(b) alternative (answer, page 1).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007