compounds down to inorganic components, based on the Chemical Abstracts
102:172028f disclosure that the ultimate products are carbon dioxide and oxalic
acid.
As to the subject matter of claim 3 there is additionally no suggestion or teaching
for a starting pH of 12 or of maintaining the pH above 4.5 until the reaction is
completed.
Finally, with respect to the first rejection, the examiner has relied upon a single
abstract in rejecting each of the claims without citing (or apparently obtaining copies
of) the underlying scientific article itself. Citation of an abstract without citation and
reliance on the underlying scientific article itself is unacceptable. Abstracts may not
be written by the author of the underlying article and often are erroneous. Hence,
the preferred practice would be for the examiner to cite and rely on the underlying
article. Further, when the examiner cites and relies on an abstract, it would appear
prudent for the applicants to obtain a copy of the underlying article and submit a
copy to the examiner when responding to the rejection. Neither action has thus far
been taken. Moreover, it is likely that the underlying article would provide at least
some of the process parameters such as pH, temperature or pressure.
Based upon the above considerations, the examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness and the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 5 as
unpatentable over Chemical Abstracts 102:172028f is not sustained. In view of the
above analysis, we have determined that the examiner’s legal conclusion of
obviousness is not supported by the facts. “Where the legal conclusion [of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007