Appeal No. 2001-0597
Application 08/564,513
In the present case, the examiner has simply failed to
identify the requisite suggestion or motivation to utilize zero
valent nickel in formulating Billig’s catalyst precursor
compositions to achieve the claimed catalyst precursor
compositions. The record establishes that Billig discloses
ligands having a generic formula which includes two different
subgeneric formulas encompassing, respectively, the Baker I and
II ligands and the presently claimed ligands. The record further
includes findings that Billig teaches complexing “nickel” with
the generic group of ligands to form catalyst precursor
compositions useful in hydroformylation processes (see column 3,
lines 50-54) and that Baker I and II disclose the effectiveness
of complexing their subgeneric group of ligands with zero valent
nickel in conjunction with hydrocyanation processes. However,
the record does not include any findings which establish why one
of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to complex
zero valent nickel with the presently claimed subgeneric group of
ligands for use as catalyst precursor compositions in Billig’s
hydroformylation processes in view of Baker I and II, or that
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007