Appeal No. 2002-1097
Application 09/382,613
same manner as the inorganic adsorbent material of the primary
reference” (id.).
Appellants argue that the examiner has failed to
establish with a reasonable expectation of success that the
alumina adsorbent of McDaniel would be effective at separating
an impurity of a salt, polar material and/or surfactant from
the polycarbonate of Tanaka (Brief, page 4). Appellants
emphasize that the ion exchange material of Tanaka is dis-
closed as being effective for separating basic substances from
a polycarbonate while McDaniel’s alumina adsorbent is disclosed
as being effective for separating basic substances from a non-
polycarbonate material (Brief, paragraph bridging pages 4-5).
In response to these arguments, the examiner submits
that one of ordinary skill in the art would “readily recognize”
that the alumina of McDaniel would have a greater affinity for
sodium or potassium hydroxide than for the polycarbonate of
Tanaka “for substantially the same reason” that this adsorbent
has a greater affinity for these materials over the polyoxy-
alkylene polyols of McDaniel (Answer, page 5). The examiner
argues that since the alumina of McDaniel is “very similar” to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007