Appeal No. 2003-1241 Page 3
Application No. 09/808,433
into iron carbonyl and cyclopentadiene constituents that correspond to the constituents
formed when the appellants’ iron carbonyl and cyclopentadiene are admixed with 1,4-
dichloro-2-butene and/or 3,4-dichloro-1-butene in accordance with the here claimed
composition. As phrased in the last sentence on page 3 of the Answer, “the Examiner
takes the position that it does not matter whether you add the iron compound to the
mixture separate from the cyclopentadiene [as in the appellants’ claimed composition],
or as an iron compound-cyclopentadienyl complex [as in Olive] the resulting
composition will still be the same”.
Similarly, although the Brief and Reply Brief contain general arguments in
opposition to an obviousness conclusion, the appellants specifically and repeatedly
argue that they have “submitted the comparative data [of record] to illustrate that the
claimed composition does not read on the mixture taught by Olive” (Reply Brief, page
3). This comparative data is presented in the Declaration by Peter Schertl under 37
CFR § 1.132, filed June 13, 2002. According to the appellants, this declaration shows
that “the activity of the presently claimed active species was surprisingly always higher
than the activity of Olive[‘s] catalyst” and “[t]herefore, as a result of the testing, the
Appellants respectfully submit that the presently claimed composition of the two
compounds [i.e., the iron compound and cyclopentadiene derivative of appealed claim
1] forms a different active species during the reaction than Olive[‘s] catalyst” (Brief,
page 4). As stated on page 2 of the Reply Brief, “Appellants are relying on the activity
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007