Appeal No. 1998-3147
Application 08/564,304
Chandalia’s solvents meet this requirement (col. 6, line 3).
Hille, however, teaches that his solvents preferably are
miscible with water, are good solvents for the resulting
polyurethane, and are easily separated from Hille’s aqueous
mixtures (col. 4, lines 16-20; col. 7, lines 28-34). The
examiner has not established that Chandalia’s ethylethoxy
propionate has these properties or explained why, if
Chandalia’s ethylethoxy propionate does not have these
properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
led by the applied references to select it for use in Hille’s
process rather than being led to select a solvent having
Hille’s desired properties. Nor has the examiner established
that the processes of Hille and Chandalia are sufficiently
similar that Hille’s disclosure that his desired solvent
properties are merely preferred would have led one of ordinary
skill in the art to use in Hille’s process any solvent
disclosed by Chandalia regardless of its properties.
For the above reasons, we conclude that the examiner has
not carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the invention recited in any of the appellants’
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007