Appeal No. 2001-1375
Application 09/204,609
2. Rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Selin.
The examiner found that “[t]he instant claims differ from
the process of the Selin et al patent by reciting a second step
to adjust the sodium hydroxide concentration to one that is less
than the concentration in step (a) and less than 9%.” Examiner’s
Answer, page 4. The examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified
Selin’s process to achieve the two step process as claimed by
utilizing a base addition step followed by a marginal dilution
step. According to the examiner, “[m]arginally modifying a
solution by dilution to correct base concentration is a skill
very well known in the chemical arts.” Id., page 5.
As with Turunen, the examiner has failed to identify any
disclosure or suggestion in Selin of a two-step process wherein
the weight ratio of cellulose carbamate to sodium hydroxide in
each of the solutions prepared in each of the process steps is
greater than one. Further, the only reasons provided by the1
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007