Appeal No. 96-2322 4
Application No. 08/112,478
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and
the examiner and agree with the appellants that the rejection of claims 2 through 5, 8
through 12, 14 and 15 is not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection.
The Rejection under § 103(a)
“The examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other
ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability,” whether on the grounds of
anticipation or obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On the record before us, the examiner respectively
relies upon a combination of references to Yamazaki, Nemec and USSR ‘808 to reject
the claimed subject matter and establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Yamazaki discloses a method for the preparation of oxamide from the reaction of
oxalic acid diester and ammonia using aliphatic alcohol as a solvent. See pages 3 and 6.
We find that there is no by-product of oxalic acid monoester monoamide. Id.
Furthermore, we find that aliphatic alcohol is used as a solvent and is exemplified by
alcohols having 1 to 6 carbon atoms. See page 5. Yamazaki discloses that both the
oxalic acid diester and the aliphatic alcohol have the same alkyl group chain which allows
for higher productivity. See page 6. We further find that Yamazaki discloses that the
products formed have excellent filtering characteristics.
Yamazaki however, is lacking a disclosure of maintaining the content of the
aliphatic alcohol at a level of 5 to 40% by weight during the course of the reaction as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007