Appeal No. 2003-1241 Page 2
Application No. 09/808,433
The references set forth below are relied upon by the examiner in the rejection
before us:
Stahl et al. (Stahl) 3,049,573 Aug. 14, 1962
Olive et al. (Olive), “Kinetics and Mechanism of the Iron Catalyzed Positional
Isomerization of Dichlorobutenes”, Journal of Organometallic Chemistry, Vol. 29, pp.
307-311 (1971).
All of the claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Olive in view of Stahl.1
We refer to the Brief and Reply Brief and to the Answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellants and by the examiner
concerning the above noted rejection.
OPINION
We will sustain this rejection for the reasons which follow.
Although the examiner’s statement of rejection is based on § 103 and refers to
Olive in view of Stahl, the rejection before us is actually based upon the examiner’s
repeatedly expressed position that “[t]he claimed composition reads on the composition
taught by Olive” (Answer, page 5). In essence, the examiner believes that the soluble
iron complex, namely, cyclopentadienyl iron dicarbonyl dimer, of Olive would
disassociate during its disclosed use as an isomerization catalyst for dichlorobutenes
1 On page 2 of the Brief, the appellants state that “[c]laims 1-7 stand or fall together”.
Therefore, in assessing the merits of the rejection before us, we will focus on independent claim 1 and will
consider remaining claims 2-7 to stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2002).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007