Ex Parte COMBS et al - Page 5




             Appeal No. 1999-2229                                                                                  
             Application No. 08/832,167                                                                            


             Polss do not inevitably contain polyoxyalkylene diols and alkoxylated unsaturates in an               
             amount greater that [sic, than] the claims [permit]” (Brief, page 5).  Our reasons for this           
             determination follow.                                                                                 
                    We cannot agree with the appellants that their position is supported by the                    
             subject specification disclosure.  On the contrary, Table 1 on specification page 10                  
             reflects that inventive monoether E of Example No. 5 included a quantity of C3 olefin                 
             (i.e., alkoxylated unsaturates) within the here claimed range despite the fact that a KOH             
             catalyst was used (i.e., the reaction was base-catalyzed in correspondence with the                   
             disclosures of Manary and Polss).  Similarly, a number of the references attached to the              
             appellants’ Brief disclose methods of making monoethers of the type under                             
             consideration having reduced unsaturation via a base-catalyzed reaction.  Specifically,               
             base-catalyzed reactions which yield reduced unsaturation are disclosed in U.S. Patent                
             No. 5,114,988 and U.S. Patent No. 5,114,619.  While the other references attached to                  
             the appellants’ Brief effect a reduction in unsaturation via other types of catalyst, they            
             certainly do not negative the teachings of the aforementioned patents or otherwise                    
             support the appellants’ sweeping proposition that all base-catalyzed reactions for                    
             making the monoethers under consideration will inherently and inevitably produce                      
             impurities at concentrations higher than permitted by the appealed claims.                            
                    In short, a number of the teachings proffered by the appellants as evidence                    
             supporting their position in fact militate against it by clearly evincing that the prior art          

                                                        5                                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007