Appeal No. 2003-1674 5
Application No. 09/651,161
Finally, although the mechanism outlined by the examiner for the hydrolysis of TPN
to TPA, which contains the hydrolysis of the ammonium terephthalate intermediate to
TPA, is agreed to by the appellant, it is not seen wherein said mechanism provides the
requisite motivation to substitute the hydrolysis of ammonium terephthalate to TPA for the
acidification step taught by Lamparter of record.
We conclude that the only reason for combining the references of record is a result
of the disclosure of the invention by the appellant. Based upon the above finding and
analysis, we conclude that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the aforesaid set of claims. See In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d
994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("[T]he best defense against the
subtle but powerful attraction of a hindsight-based obviousness analysis is rigorous
application of the requirement for a showing of the teaching or motivation to combine
prior art references").
The reference to Ventura is directed exclusively to the polymerization of
polyethylene terephthalate and accordingly is not relevant to the issue before us for
consideration.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007