2.
Applicant's principal, if not only, argument on appeal
claiming that the rejection is "incorrect" (Appeal Brief, pages
5-6) is that Shafer involves co-crystallization of diphenyl
carbonate with a solvent--phenol. As noted by applicant (Appeal
Brief, page 5: "the process disclosed in Shafer relies on
crystallizing DPC [diphenyl carbonate] with a phenol solvent to
form 1:1 molar crystals, and subsequently distilling off the
phenol." Applicant tells us that his claimed process (1) does
not employ a solvent (i.e., phenol), (2) does not involve forming
an adduct, and (3) merely heats the crystals to their melting
point rather than distilling off a solvent (Appeal Brief, page
6).
The difficulty with applicant's arguments is that claim 1
does not exclude the steps which applicant says claim 1 does not
cover.
It is true that claim 1 does not "employ", i.e., expressly
call for adding, a solvent such a phenol. However, adding phenol
to the crude diphenyl carbonate containing contaminants is not
excluded by claim 1.
It is further true that claim 1 does not mention formation
of an adduct. However, formation of an adduct is not excluded
from the claim.
It is still further true that claim 1 does not mention
distilling off phenol. However, distilling off phenol is not
excluded by claim 1. Moreover, in reaching the temperature to
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007