Appeal No. 2001-2028 5
Application No. 09/141,163
Reference to the specification including the examples however, fails to support the
apparent stoichiometric excess required by the claimed subject matter. The appellants
submitted at oral argument that the stoichiometric excess may refer to the weight of the
components present. In this respect, we note however, that inasmuch as the molecular
weight of cyclopropane carboxylic acid is approximately 86 as compared with 32 for
methanol and 46 for ethanol, the claimed subject matter may be interpreted as providing
for a substantial weight excess of cyclopropane carboxylic acid including more than a two-
fold excess with respect to methanol and still be present within the preferred limitations of
Liang. Stated otherwise a stoichiometric excess of cyclopropane carboxylic acid may
nonetheless fall within the teaching of Liang. See infra.
Notwithstanding claim 1, dependent claims 10 and 11, which are necessarily
directed to claims narrower than the scope of claim 1, specifically provide for mole ratios
wherein the alcohol is present in an amount in excess of the cyclopropane carboxylic acid.
Indeed claim 10 provides for “a mole ratio of cyclopropane carboxylic acid and lower
alcohol, in the range of 1:1.20 to 1:1.02" which provides up to a 20% excess of alcohol,
which is not necessarily even inconsistent with our interpretation of “stoichiometric excess”
supra. We accordingly, interpret appellants’ invention in accordance with claims 10 and
11.
Liang is directed to a process for the preparation of cyclopropane carboxylic acid
and esters thereof. See column 1, lines 5-9. We find that Liang discloses the preparation
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007