Appeal No. 1997-2797
Application 08/199,286
appellants, however, that the support proffered by the
examiner for his obviousness conclusion is evidentially
inadequate.
The Regitz reference clearly teaches adding a suitable
base after isolation of the phosphonium salts formed during
the halogenation step. Notwithstanding the examiner's
contrary view, nothing in this reference would have suggested
modifying this process in such a manner as to result in the
appellants' claimed process wherein the chlorine and base are
fed concurrently. Stated differently, the record before us
contains no evidence that an artisan with ordinary skill would
have regarded the sequence and isolation teachings of Regitz
as superfluous teachings which should be ignored rather than
followed.
In light of the foregoing we cannot sustain the
examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 1-4 and 7 as being
unpatentable over Regitz.
The Section 103 Rejection over March
On page 4 of the answer, the examiner sets forth the
following rationale in support of his obviousness conclusion:
Applicants claim the formation of olefinically
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007