Appeal No. 2003-1674 3
Application No. 09/651,161
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 through 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lamparter in view of Sze and further in view of Ventura.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellant and
the examiner and agree with the appellant that the rejection of the claims under § 103(a)
is not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection.
The Rejection under § 103(a)
The primary reference to Lamparter is directed to a method for recycling
polyethylene terephthalate. There is no dispute that Lamparter discloses steps (a) and (b)
of the claimed subject matter wherein polyethylene terephthalate is contacted with
ammonium hydroxide to form a mixture of ammonium terephthalate and ethylene glycol
wherein the ammonium terephthalate is thereafter separated from the mixture. The
claimed subject matter thereafter requires heating the ammonium terephthalate to form
TPA and ammonia. See step (c), of claim 1. In contrast, Lamparter acidifies the
ammonium terephthalate with a mineral acid such as sulfuric acid to form TPA and an
ammonium salt, such as ammonium sulfate. Thus, Lamparter fails to disclose or teach step
(c) of claim 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007