Appeal No. 2006-1161
Application No. 10/322,254
monoaddition product, i.e., by increasing the ratio of the perfluoro starting material to
HFPO. See col. 11, lines 50-66.
Turning to the additional limitations in claims 2-5 and 11-19, we agree with the
Appellant that “Kimoto fails to disclose a process” resulting in the selectivity and molar
ratios claimed in claims 2-5 and 11-19. See Brief at 8. However, the issue before us is
not anticipation but rather obviousness under § 103(a). As previously determined,
Kimoto would have motivated the skilled artisan to optimize the yield of the
monoaddition product. See the discussion supra at 9-12. See also Answer at 3-4; Final
Office Action at 3-4. The claimed selectivity and molar ratios are merely the result of
such optimization. Again, optimization of a previously disclosed range, resulting in such
claimed selectivity and molar ratios does not warrant the grant of patent, absent some
evidence that the results are “unexpectedly good.” We find no such results in the record.
Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of all the pending claim as prima facie obvious
over Kimoto in view of Lewis.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007