Appeal No. 2002-1751 Page 2
Application No. 09/098,679
glycerin to inhibit the oxidative degradation and thus prevent discoloration (Id.). Claims 1, 5, 9,
and 13 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A process for inhibiting the oxidative degradation of glycerin comprising adjusting the
pH of glycerin to a range of from about 3.5 to about 5.0.
5. A process for inhibiting the oxidative degradation of glycerin comprising adjusting the
pH of glycerin to a range of from about 10.0 to about 12.0.
9. The product of the process of claim 1.
13. The product of the process of claim 5.
All of the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). As evidence of anticipation, the
Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Shaw et al. (Shaw) 5,134,130 Jul. 28, 1992
CAPLUS Abstract (1972) of Turanskii et al., Automatic Control of the Purification of Spent
Lyes, 37(11) Maslo-Zhir. Prom. 20 (1971) (Turanskii).1
CAPLUS Abstract (1995) of Ueoka et al., JP 06184024 A2 (1994) (Ueoka).2
The Examiner lists six separate rejections over the three references. For simplicity, we
will list the rejections as follows:
1Appellant states that a copy of the Turanskii article was not received, only an abstract (Brief, p. 3). While
the Examiner’s statement of rejection lists the article, only the abstract is discussed (Answer, p. 4). A copy of the
article and a translation thereof were not obtained until after the Brief was filed and there is no evidence that copies
were forwarded to Appellant. Given that Appellant appears not to have had an opportunity to respond to the
contents of the article, we will limit our review to the abstract. Copies of the article and translation accompany our
Decision.
2Again, it appears the Examiner relied upon the abstract and Appellant was not given an opportunity to
respond to the later obtained translation. We, therefore, limit our review to the abstract. We enclose a copy of the
translation with our Decision.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007