Appeal 97-1554
Application 08/495,593
B. Discussion
1. Prima facie obviousness
Applicants suggest in the Appeal Brief that the showings
in the specification and the Schwahn overcome any "possible"
prima facie case of obviousness made out by the prior art
(page 2). Not clear on this record is whether applicants
maintain that the examiner has failed to make out a prima
facie case of obviousness. Rule 192 [37 CFR § 1.92]
requires an applicant to set out the reasons why a rejection
is not proper. Accordingly, we consider only the reasons
advanced by applicants in their appeal brief--not some other
arguments which we can imagine could have been made.
The sole argument we have uncovered which arguably
relates to prima facie obviousness appears on page 5 of the
Appeal Brief. There applicants contend that there is no hint
in Rath of the use of a polyisobutylamine manufactured by the
hydroformylation process of Kummer. According to counsel for
applicants, at the time Rath filed a patent application (5
August 1988 in Germany), the most common commercially
available polyisobutyamines were manufactured via the chlorine
route. Applicants reason that the reference in Rath to
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007