Appeal No. 1997-4336
Application No. 08/279,317
contain an inert gas such as nitrogen so as to form the here
claimed solution. Accordingly, we also reverse the
obviousness rejection on this basis.
The examiner also states that the organic solvents listed
at Sander’s column 4, lines 13-15 are polar solvents within
the scope of the appealed claims and that “this disclosure
renders obvious the instantly claimed invention unpatentable.”
(Examiner’s answer, page 7.) Specifically, this portion of
Sander’s disclosure teaches that chlorinated hydrocarbons such
as methylene chloride, dichloromethane, tetrachloroethylene
and chlorobenzene can be part of a solvent mixture together
with pentane. As pointed out by the appellants (reply brief,
pages
3-4), however, appealed claim 20 recites that the co-solvent
spin liquid has a lower solvent strength than the hydrocarbon
in the spin liquid. Here, we determine that the initial
burden of proving a prima facie case of obviousness has not
been met because there is no evidence in the record to
indicate that the chlorinated hydrocarbons described in Sander
would have a lower solvent strength than pentane as required
by appealed claim 20. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72,
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007