Appeal No: 2000-0635
Application No: 08/511,028
and (2) that at least 10% of the water present in
the acid phase is removed, while the instant
application teaches of removing at least 5% of the
water from the acid phase.
37 CFR § 1.192 states that, in the appeal brief,
applicants' argument shall specify the error in the rejection
and the specific limitations in the rejected claims which
cause the rejection to be in error.
Applicants argue that claims 1-10 are patentably distinct
from the claims of Schieb because the claims require that some
mononitrotoluene (MNT) remain in the reaction mixture.
According to applicants, a nitric acid to toluene ratio of
2:1, as claimed by Schieb, would achieve complete conversion
of toluene to dinitrotoluene leaving no MNT in the reaction
mixture (Paper 13 (Rep. Br.) at 2).
In their appeal brief, appplicants do not present any
specific argument regarding the limitation in their claims
requiring removal of at least 5% of the water from the acid
phase and therefore we assume that applicants do not rely on
the limitation as a ground for arguing that the examiner's
rejection of the claims is in error.
DISCUSSION
Obviousness-type double patenting:
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007