Appeal 2006-2185
Application 10/248,892
Here, we agree with the Examiner that Hawkins ‘005 or ‘510, Graves
and Taylor provide facts which support the Examiner’s obviousness
contention regarding the proposed modification of either of the Hawkins’
references, as outlined in the Answer and above. In addition, we note that
Hawkins ‘005 does not serve as a teaching away from the claimed subject
matter as Appellants maintain. In this regard, the teaching in Hawkins ‘005
concerning the avoidance of a prolonged period of time between forming a
reactant admixture and reacting the same would not discourage one of
ordinary skill in the art from making sure urea, one of the aqueous reactants,
is dissolved. Indeed, providing for the dissolution of urea, one of the
aqueous solution reactants, would be an expected reactant admixture
formation step, not a delay in keeping the reactants in admixture. In this
regard, we note that Appellants (Reply Br. 8) acknowledge that urea
dissolves at 45 degrees Centigrade, as taught by Graves. That is all that
Graves is relied on for. Moreover, Hawkins ‘005 teaches that the reactants
are mixed in an aqueous solution before the “solution” is heated to a high
enough temperature to perform the reaction. See, e.g., col.6, ll. 39-47 of
Hawkins ’005. In this regard, Hawkins ‘005 seems to be primarily
concerned with a reactant imbalance occurring or being maintained as set
forth at col. 6, ll. 51-59 of Hawkins ‘005, not with preventing any reactant
admixture time and/or temperature conditions for dissolution of urea.
Appellants express the same concern with respect to reactant imbalance in
paragraph 0030 of their Specification. As such, Appellants’ teaching away
contention is lacking in merit.
As for the arguments concerned with the alleged discovery of a new
benefit associated with dissolving urea at temperature conditions conducive
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007