Appeal No. 1997-1992 Page 9
Application No. 08/115,388
Thus, outside of appellants' own specification, we cannot
find, on this record, a reasonable suggestion to use an N,N'-
dialkyl-N,N'-dinitrosophenylenediamine compounds in
combination with phenothiazine, as called for in claim 10, for
suppressing polymerization in the distillation of acrylic or
methacrylic acid or ester as claimed herein. Accordingly, we
agree with appellants that the applied prior art would not
have rendered the specifically claimed process herein prima
facie obvious without the impermissible use of hindsight
reasoning. See W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984); In re Rothermel, 276 F.2d 393,
396, 125 USPQ 328, 331 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, for the above reasons, we find that the
examiner has not set forth a factual basis which is sufficient
to support a conclusion of obviousness of appellants’ claimed
invention.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007