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
lines
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
reversed.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007