Appeal No. 2001-0405
Application No. 09/169,087
The section 103 rejection
Concerning this rejection, the appellants advance the
following argument in the sentence bridging pages 5 and 6 of the
brief:
As has already been discussed above, Klingler et
al does not teach or suggest the addition of any
solvent much less the amount of solvent necessary to
generate a vapor satisfying the added solvent to DNT
ratio specified in Appellants’ Claim 12.
This argument is unconvincing because, as previously
explained, the process of Klingler necessarily and inherently
practices the solvent adding step of the independent claim on
appeal. Moreover, it is appropriate to emphasize that the ratios
of solvent to dinitrotoluene present in the vapor which are
disclosed by Klingler (e.g., see the paragraph bridging pages 3
and 4) are encompassed by the broad range of ratios defined by
here rejected claim 12. For these reasons, we also shall sustain
the examiner’s section 103 rejection of claim 12 as being
unpatentable over Klingler.
Summary
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007