Appeal No. 1999-1008
Application 08/713,905
clearly establishes that, if the description in the specification is a correct reflection of the state of
the art, one of ordinary skill in this art would not have considered an ether isocyanate having
even 400 ppm of hydrolyzable chlorine to be a “high quality” isocyanate product produced by the
process described in the specification.
Thus, we find that the written description would have reasonably conveyed to one
skilled in this art the concept that the process disclosed in the specification would prepare ether
mono- and polyisocyanates in the ppm range as shown in the specification examples. We are
reinforced in our view by the distinct differences in process steps, particularly with respect to
product workup, between specification Example 1 and the specification Comparative Example,
and the clear message that the hydrolyzable chlorine content of 0.1%, that is, 1000 ppm,
obtained for the unidentified product by the unidentified prior art process in the Comparative
Example is highly undesirable compared to the double digit ppm range obtained with the
disclosed process.
Accordingly, upon reconsideration of the facts in the evidence of record as a whole, we
determine, as a matter of fact, that one skilled in this art would not have reasonably recognized
in the disclosure of appellants’ application as filed a description of the invention encompassed
by appealed claims 3 and 4 which establishes that appellants were in possession of the claimed
invention encompassed by appealed claims 3 and 4, including all of the limitations thereof, at
the time the application was filed as required by § 112, first paragraph, written description
requirement.
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007