Appeal No. 2001-0405
Application No. 09/169,087
f) collecting the solvent and any dinitrotoluene present
therein.
The reference set forth below is relied upon by the examiner
in the section 102 and section 103 rejections before us:
Klingler et al. (Klingler) CA 2155561 Feb. 12, 1996
Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Klingler, and claim 12 stands rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Klingler.1
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by
the appellants and by the examiner concerning the above noted
rejections, we refer to the brief and reply brief and to the
answer for a complete exposition thereof.
OPINION
We will sustain each of these rejections for the reasons
expressed in the answer and below.
The section 102 rejection
The examiner considers the appealed claim 1 step of adding
solvent to the vapor generated during the reaction mixture
concentrating step as inherently practiced by the process of
1
1 As indicated on page 3 of the brief, the claims have been
grouped and argued on this appeal in accordance with the manner
in which they have been rejected. Accordingly, in assessing the
merits of these rejections, we need focus only on independent
claim 1 and dependent claim 12.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007