Appeal No. 2001-1234
Application 08/658,983
references would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill
in the art, mixing bromine and molten aromatic compound before
they are fed to the reaction vessel. In dependent claims 29, 30
and 45, a further issue is whether the applied references would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to carry out this
mixing at specified short times before the mixture is fed to the
reaction vessel.
The examiner has not provided evidence or technical
reasoning which shows that the applied references would have
fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, feeding a
mixture of bromine and molten aromatic compound into the reaction
vessel, especially at the short times after mixing recited in
claims 29, 30 and 45.2 Hence, the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness of the process recited in any of
the appellants’ claims. Consequently, we reverse the examiner’s
rejection.
2 The examiner appears to argue that Ransford’s
diphenylalkane solute is in molten form (answer, page 6), but has
provided no supporting evidence.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007