Appeal No. 2006-1022
Application No. 10/084,829
1461, 1463-64 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) No such proof has been advanced on the record of
this appeal.
Finally, the appellant argues that “the –OOH terminator disclosed by Calcaterra does not
form a peracid” (Supplemental Reply Brief, paragraph bridging pages 5-6). According to the
appellant, “a peracid must have (1) the –OOH group (2) bonded to a carbon and (3) an oxygen
bonded with a double bond to the same carbon” (id.). Though not expressly stated, the premise
of this argument is that patentee’s –OOH terminator does not include an oxygen bonded with a
double bond to the same carbon as the –OOH group and therefore is not a peracid. This
argument is unpersuasive because its aforementioned premise is incorrect. The accepted
definition of a peracid does not require the presence of such a double bond oxygen (e.g., see
Hawley’s Condensed Chemical Dictionary, 14th Edition, page 847).
For the reasons set forth above and in the answer, it is our ultimate determination that the
examiner has established a prima facie case of unpatentability which the appellant has failed to
successfully rebut with argument or evidence to the contrary. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We hereby sustain, therefore, the examiner’s
§ 102 and § 103 rejections of all appealed claims based on Calcaterra.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007