Appeal No. 2005-1140
Application 10/247,069
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Gupta et al. (Gupta) 5,672,768 Sep. 30, 1997
Cline et al. (Cline) 6,040,028 Mar. 21, 2000
Pazos et al. (Pazos ‘571)1 WO 98/03571 Jan. 29, 1998
(published World Intellectual Property Organization Application)
The examiner has rejected appealed claims 1 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pazos ‘571 alone or in view of Gupta, with respect to appealed claim 6, and
Cline, with respect to appealed claim 7 (answer, pages 3-6).
Appellants state that the appealed “claims stand or fall together” but provides some
manner of argument with respect to claims 2 and 4 through 7 (brief, pages 2 and 3-4). Thus, we
decide this appeal based on appealed claim 1 and the other claims to the extent argued by
appellants. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2003); see also 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (effective
September 13, 2004; 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21
(September 7, 2004)).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellants,
we refer to the answer and to the brief for a complete exposition thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in
agreement with the supported position advanced by the examiner that, prima facie, the claimed
process for preparing polyoxyalkylene polyether products encompassed by appealed claims 1,
2 and 4 through 7 would have been obvious over Pazos ‘571 alone and as combined with Gupta,
with respect to appealed claim 6, and with Cline, with respect to appealed claim 7, to one of
ordinary skill in this art at the time the claimed invention was made. In view of the established
prima facie case of obviousness, we again consider the record as a whole with respect to this
ground of rejection in light of appellants’ rebuttal arguments in the brief. See generally, In re
1 Pazos ‘571 is in the same patent literature family as United States Patent 5,689,012, issued
November 18, 1997, to Pazos et al. (Pazos ‘012) that appellants cite in the written description in
the specification and have made of record.
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007