Appeal No. 2000-2179
Application No. 09/235,242
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner are:
Sullivan, III et al. (Sullivan) 4,231,956 Nov. 4, 1980
Green 4,617,154 Oct. 14, 1986
O’Lenick, Jr. et al. (O’Lenick) 5,196,589 Mar. 23, 1993
The reference relied upon by the appellants is:
Brunson, “Cyanoethylation,” Organic Reactions, Vol. 5, pp.
79-135 (New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1949).
Claims 2 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combined disclosures of O’Lenick,
Green and Sullivan.
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification, and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by
both the examiner and the appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the
examiner’s Section 103 rejection is well founded. Accordingly,
we will sustain the examiner’s Section 103 rejection. Our
reasons for this determination follow.
We find that O’Lenick teaches a process for preparing an
alkoxypropylamine by reacting alcohol with acrylonitrile in the
presence of any cyanoethylation “alkaline catalyst, e.g.,
benzyltrimethylammonium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, sodium
methoxide, or sodium hydroxide, to form B-alkoxypropionitrile”
and hydrogenating $-alkoxypropionitrile, without prior removal
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007