Appeal No. 2001-0754
Application 09/040,276
1980
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-14 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious over Büschken and over EP ‘667.
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejections. We need to
address only claim 1, which is the sole independent process
claim, and claim 16. Also, because Büschken and EP ‘667 are
equivalents we address only one of these references, i.e.,
Büschken.
Claim 1
Büschken discloses a method for making 2,2,6,6-
tetramethylpiperidine-N-oxide by catalytically oxidizing
2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine with hydrogen peroxide in an
aqueous medium in the presence of an alkaline earth metal salt
catalyst (col. 1, lines 9-37; col. 2, lines 57-61; col. 3,
lines 12-15). Thus, as shown by a comparison of the reactions
at column 2, lines 21-48 of Büschken and page 2, line 15
through page 3, line 5 of the appellant’s specification,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007