Appeal 1997-1635
Application 08/319,667
Applicants' BASF colleague, Wilhelm Karl Schropp (the
inventor named in the European Patent Application which is
also assigned to BASF) would no doubt be at least minimally
disappointed in the manner in which his colleagues impugn the
integrity of the invention he describes in his European Patent
Application. The invention described in the European Patent
Application sought to overcome a process "during which the
distillation column *** [becomes] rapidly covered with by-
products, so that a flushing of the equipment is required
after only a few days" (paragraph bridging pages 2-3). Thus,
the invention described in the European Patent Application, at
least inferentially, would require flushing less often than
only a few days. But, even only a few days is more than the 3
hours mentioned in applicants' Example 1.
There may be an explanation for the apparent
inconsistency between the European Patent Application and
applicants' showing. Maybe the "plant" used to test the
amines of the European Patent Application was more "modern"
than that used by applicants. Neither plant is described in
the record.
- 22 -
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007