Appeal No. 2006-2247
Reexamination Nos. 90/006,554 and 90/006,894
1 3,960,542 to Plant et al...as well as by Witman[] and/or Abramovitch
2 and Plant alone.” (Reexamination 90/006,894, request at 4.)
3 9. Reexamination 90/006,894 was ordered on February 27, 2004.
4 (Reexamination Order mailed on February 27, 2004 in 90/006,894.)
5 10. The two reexamination proceedings were merged on May 14, 2004.
6 11. The examiner did not reopen prosecution based on the newly cited
7 prior art identified in the second request but instead entered a final
8 rejection on December 17, 2004 based on the same references applied
9 in the first reexamination (90/006,554). (Paper 19.)
10 12. The invention relates to a process for preparing polyvinylpyridine N-
11 oxides (PVNO) by oxidizing polyvinylpyridine (PVP) in an aqueous
12 hydrogen peroxide solution having a water content of at least 25% in
13 the presence of an acid and a specified catalyst. (Appeal Brief at 5.)
14 13. The specification of the ‘684 patent states: “It is an object of the
15 present invention to provide a process for oxidizing polymers which
16 contain vinylpyridine units which can be implemented industrially.”
17 (Column 1, lines 27-29.)
18 14. In its principal brief, the appellant acknowledges that “it was known
19 to prepare PVNO by oxidizing PVP in a glacial acetic acid solution”
20 but that “such prior art processes when operated industrially left, for
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007