Appeal No. 2003-0849
Application 09/622,916
Appellants argue that the process of Frank takes place at an earlier stage prior
to the purification and recovery of methacrylic acid (i.e., before a rectification
process). According to Appellants, Frank adds a surfactant while the methacrylic
acid in water is in the gaseous state and not during a rectification process. The
Appellants also argue that in Frank the surfactant is added at or near the point of
condensation of a gaseous effluent containing methacrylic acid not during the
rectification, as in Herbst. Consequently, without knowledge of the present
invention it would have been nearly impossible to predict what effect the addition of
the surfactant would have if added during rectification. (Brief, pp. 4-5).
In response, the Examiner asserts that “the surfactant is known to prevent the
polymerization of methacrylic acid; it can do so in the rectification process or as in
the case of Frank et al in the downstream portion of the reactor train (Col. 2:21-27).
In fact Frank et al’s caveat about the addition of the surfactant is that the surfactant
material should not be introduced ‘at a point in which the temperature is at or above
the point of the decomposition of the surfactant material’ (Col. 2:28-30). In other
words, as long as the temperature of the medium is below the decomposition point
of the surfactant, the surfactant can be used.” (Answer, p. 6).
The Examiner has not provided adequate reasons why there is motivation to
combine the references and why such a combination would have rendered the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007