Appeal No. 2003-0808
Application No. 09/343,334
Since the teachings of the reference encompass
polyalphaolefins with Bromine Index ranges less than
200, appellants’ polyalphaolefin product is
anticipated by the reference of Wu...
We cannot agree with the examiner on this issue. As
pointed out by the appellants (appeal brief, page 10), the
relied upon prior art disclosure of “characterized by low
bromine number, usually lower than 4” is not sufficiently
specific to describe the here claimed range of “a Bromine Index
of less than 200 mg Bromine per 100 gram sample of
polyalphaolefin.” The phrase “bromine number...usually lower
than 4” (i.e., a bromine index of lower than 4,000), without
more, may be interpreted as indicating a bromine number such as
3.99 (or a bromine index of 3,990), which is outside the
appellants’ claimed range. In this regard, it is important to
note that Wu does not disclose the degree or the nature of
hydrogenation. (Column 3, lines 51-57.)
Under these circumstances, we hold that the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of anticipation.3
3 On return of this application to the jurisdiction of the
examiner, the appellants and the examiner must analyze whether
the subject matter of appealed claims 13-24 would have been
obvious over Wu, taken alone or in combination with other prior
art, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007