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