Appeal No. 2001-0849 Page 2
Application No. 08/990,120
Claims 1 and 10 are illustrative of the claims on appeal and reads as follows:
1. A process for making a sulfoxide comprising oxidizing a sulfide in a reaction
mixture containing a perborate as an oxidizing agent to form a reaction product that
contains the sulfoxide, wherein the oxidation occurs at a pH of from about 0.5 to
about 5.0.
10. A process for making a sulfoxide comprising oxidizing a sulfide in a reaction
mixture containing a percarbonate as an oxidizing agent to form a reaction product
that contains the sulfoxide, wherein the oxidation occurs at a pH of from about 0.5 to
about 5.0.
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Shanklin et al. (Shanklin) 4,724,235 Feb. 9, 1988
Hackh’s Chemical Dictionary (Hackh’s), 4th Ed., New York, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, p. 498 (1969)
Durst, “Sulphoxides”, Comprehensive Organic Chemistry, Chp. 11.6, Vol. 3:
Sulphur, Selenium, Silicon, Boron, Organometallic Compounds, pp. 121-156,
(1979).
Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Durst and Shanklin in view of Hackh’s.
DISCUSSION
The issue for our review is whether the claimed invention is properly
rejectable under § 103 as being unpatentable over Durst and Shanklin in view of
Hackh’s. After careful review of the record, we find the examiner’s position raised in
this appeal is not amenable to a meaningful review. Under the present
circumstances, the position put forward by the examiner in support of the rejection is
insufficient for the reasons infra. Since the Board serves as a board of review, not a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007