Appeal No. 2002-0984
Application 09/246,179
We find that Berard may be considered as evidence that it
was well known in the art at the time appellants made their
invention to monitor a chemical reaction by spectrally
determining when a specific starting material in the original
reaction mixture disappeared and when a particular, expected
product appeared. But this still leaves the question of whether
the conditions at the probe which are specifically recited in
claim 6 have been shown to be "obvious" within the sense of the
statute.
Appellants urge that because the claimed process deals with
polymeric products or modified polymeric products the question of
whether IR-ATR technology would have been expected to be useful
in polymeric reaction systems remained open to doubt and is not
shown by any reference. See page 6 of the brief. The examiner has
not rebutted this argument but has conceded no reference
discloses the use of IR-ATR technology in polymeric systems. See
page 3 of the examiner's answer. Further, appellants allege to
have discovered that for good results using IR-ATR technology in
polymeric reaction systems it is essential for the reactor to be
agitated, that the contents have a particular maximum viscosity
and the IR measurements made at the probe. No evidence on which
the examiner relies addresses these limitations let alone
discloses them. While Ullmann's does disclose the use of infrared
spectroscopy for monitoring modification of polymeric products,
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007