Appeal No. 2006-1161
Application No. 10/322,254
X-Rf-CF2-O-CF(CF3)CF2-O-CF(CF3)COF (III)
in said mixture of addition products.
The following references were cited and relied upon by the Examiner:
U.S. Patent No. 4,613,467 (issued Sept. 23, 1986 to Kimoto et al.) (hereafter “Kimoto”);
Lewis Sr., R.J., HAWLEY’S CONDENSED CHEMICAL DICTIONARY 995 (12th ed. 1993)
(hereafter “Lewis”).
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Kimoto in view of Lewis. Answer at 2.
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Reactions of hexafluoropropylene oxide (HFPO) with
perfluoroacyl fluorides that result in a mixture of reaction products,
differing in the number of incorporated HFPO units, are known. In the
practice of these reactions, careful fractionation of the product mixture
may be required to remove undesirable byproducts, such as products
incorporating more than one HFPO unit. [Specification at 1.]
In this case, the perfluoroacyl fluoride is in molar excess of the HFPO by at least
10%, with the object of obtaining selectivity for the monoaddition product over the
biaddition product of 90% or greater. Specification at 1-2. The product is separated from
the unreacted perfluoroacyl fluoride, and this unreacted starting material is recycled by
again reacting it with HFPO. Id.
DISCUSSION
Concerning the application of § 103(a), the Supreme Court has articulated three
factors that are relevant to an obviousness determination: (1) the scope and content of the
prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and claims at issue; and (3) the level of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007