Appeal No. 1996-1288
Application No. 08/227,576
the examiner has given no reason why the subject specification
disclosure would not enable an artisan with ordinary skill to
determine (without undue experimentation) the “reaction” or
mechanism involved with the addition of an organic base to the
amine solution. In re Strahilevitz, id. It follows that the
examiner has provided us with no acceptable reasoning in
support of his position that the artisan likewise would not be
able to determine metes and bounds of the claim 24 requirement
of a “stoichiometric amount” associated with this “reaction”
or mechanism.
Finally, the section 103 rejection of all the appealed
claims likewise cannot be sustained. This is because the
examiner does not point to and we do not independently find
any teaching or suggestion in the Brunnmueller reference which
concerns the here claimed “process for removal of sulfonated
and unsulfonated organic phosphorous compounds from a starting
solution which is a reaction product of sulfonation of aryl
phosphines by sulfuric acid, which process comprises
extraction of said sulfuric acid with 40 to 90 mol . . . of a
principal amine” (claim 28). Instead, Brunnmueller relates to
a process for the separation of water-soluble salts of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007