Ex parte TAYLOR et al. - Page 8

          Appeal No. 1997-2265                                                        
          Application No. 08/369,207                                                  

          prior art would have revealed a reasonable expectation of                   
          success in carrying out the method of appealed claim 2.                     
          Although Gordon teaches the chlorination of 1,2-dichloroethane              
          to produce                                                                  
          1,1,2-trichloroethane, this reaction is only accomplished in a              
          liquid reaction medium of a mixture of 1,2-dichloroethane and               
          1,1,2-trichloroethane (see Gordon, column 1, lines 5-15 and                 
          53-56).  The process of Bursack produces a reaction product of              
          1,1,1-trichloroethane contaminated with by-product                          
          1,2-dichloroethane.  The examiner has not established, by                   
          convincing evidence or reasoning, that the reaction of Gordon               
          would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the                   
          presence of 1,1,1-trichloroethane (see the Answer, page 6).                 
               For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in                       
          appellants’ Brief, we determine that the examiner has not                   
          established a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the                
          reference evidence.  Accordingly, the rejection of claim 2                  
          under 35 U.S.C.  103 over Bursack in view of Gordon is                     
               The decision of the examiner is reversed.                              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007