Appeal No. 2000-0132
Application No. 08/934,791
we conclude that the examiner has established a prima facie case
of obviousness regarding the subject matter of claims 24, 44 and
45.
The examiner also mistakenly believes that Hagel does not
teach or would have suggested the aromatic substituents recited
in claims 27, 31, 48 and 52. Thus, the examiner relies on the
disclosures of Porath and Ayers, in addition to the disclosures
of Hagel and Mikes, for such a teaching. Although we concur with
the appellants that Porath and Ayers would not have suggested the
claimed, substituted cellulose triphenyl carbamate, we find that
Hagel alone would have at least suggested the claimed substituted
cellulose triphenyl carbamate, e.g, one substituted with methyl.8
One of ordinary skill in the art, due to structural similarities
between the compounds involved, would have had a reasonable
expectation of successfully obtaining sorbents having the same or
similar property. Hence, we conclude that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness regarding the
subject matter of claims 27, 31, 48, and 52.
The examiner further mistakenly believes that Hagel does not
teach the ground cellulose triphenyl carbamate particles recited
8 The claimed alkyl group includes methyl.
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007