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 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007