Appeal No. 2003-0804
Application No. 09/196,266
invention provides high conversion of acid ester while minimizing
production of undesired side products such as dimers, oligomers
and polymers [and] also minimizes energy usage, and allows
continuous operation with low capital cost equipment” (page 4
principal brief, second paragraph).
Appealed claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claims 1-4 and 8-
20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Ridland, while claims 5-7 and 21-34 stand rejected under
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Ridland in view of Datta.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellant and the examiner. In so doing, we concur
with appellant that the examiner’s rejections are not
sustainable. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejections under § 112
and § 103 are reversed for essentially the reasons expressed by
appellant in the principal and reply briefs on appeal.
Concerning the examiner’s § 112, second paragraph,
rejection, the examiner has not carried the initial burden of
demonstrating that when the claim language “substantial” and
“sufficiently” are read in light of the present specification and
state of the prior art, one of ordinary skill in the art would be
unable to reasonably determine the scope of the claimed
-3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007