Appeal No. 2006-1161
Application No. 10/322,254
artisan would reasonably believe that the unreacted starting materials
are contained in at least one of the upper layer and/or fraction(s) which
were separated from the desired product. [Answer at 6-7.]
Kimoto clearly discloses separating reactants from the addition product, a very
routine step performed by those of ordinary skill in the art conducting synthetic reactions.
And we agree with the Examiner that unreacted FSO2(CF2)nCOF is undoubtedly
inherently present “in at least one of the upper layer and/or fraction(s) which were
separated from the desired product,” particularly given that yield of the product is
substantially less than 100%. See the discussion of Example 2 supra at 5.
In any case, Kimoto teaches separation of unreacted starting material(s) from the
final product. See col. 29, lines 39-52; col. 30, lines 41-53. These teachings clearly
suggest what Appellant has claimed in step c) regardless of whether the disclosed
separations yield unreacted HFPO, FSO2(CF2)nCOF or both. The skilled artisan seeking
to reap the benefits of recycling described in Lewis (and well understood in the art)
would have known how to and would have been motivated to separate any
FSO2(CF2)nCOF in order to conduct step d).
Step d) requires “repeating step a) using unreacted X-Rf-COF separated in step
c).” See claim 1. With respect to this limitation, the Examiner acknowledges that it is
not taught by Kimoto. Answer at 5. To bridge this difference, she relies on Lewis for the
“general teaching regarding recycling,” stating that it “gives reasons why one would want
to recycle unreacted starting materials.” Id. According to the Examiner, “the teaching of
Lewis is applicable to the process taught by Kimoto, which inherently contains unreacted
starting materials.” Id.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007