Appeal No. 2000-0782
Application No. 08/549,322
applied prior art, we determine that all of the limitations of the
process of claim 1 on appeal would have been suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants’ invention in
view of this prior art evidence. The admitted prior art and the
applied references to Rao and Lovelace all suggest that the product
is not removed from the reaction zone and thus remains as a solvent
for the reactants as they are introduced into the reaction zone.
Appellants argue that claim 11 further differs from the
disclosure of the applied prior art in the use of a different
organic solvent, namely 1,3-dichloro-1-fluorobutane (Brief, page
8). This argument is not well taken since claim 11 on appeal
recites that the organic solvent consists of “at least one
saturated halogen-containing hydrocarbon” selected from a group
which includes the 1-chloro-1-fluoroethane and 1,1-difluoroethane
products of the admitted prior art. Claim 11, contrary to
appellants’ argument, is inclusive of but not limited to 1,3-
dichloro-1-fluorobutane.
E. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the claimed
subject matter would have been prima facie obvious in view of the
admitted prior art, Rao and Lovelace. Since our claim
construction, reasoning and analysis of the prior art differs from
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007