Ex Parte 5578684 et al - Page 12

            Appeal No. 2006-2247                                                                              
            Reexamination Nos. 90/006,554 and 90/006,894                                                      
        1          38. With respect to separately argued claim 5, the examiner found that the                 
        2                recited range for the catalyst does not significantly deviate from the               
        3                range disclosed in Witman.  (Examiner’s Answer at 7.)                                
        4          39. The examiner also found that Dunn discloses a process for preparing                    
        5                polyvinylpyridine N-oxides by oxidizing polyvinylpyridine in the                     
        6                presence of an organic peracid oxidizing agent.  (Examiner’s Answer                  
        7                at 4.)                                                                               
        8          40. Based on the collective teachings of these references, examiner held                   
        9                that “[t]he oxidation of polyvinylpyridine (a polymer containing                     
       10                tertiary amine groups) is within the generic teaching of Witman” and                 
       11                that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to              
       12                use the process of Witman to oxidize [the] polyvinylpyridine shown in                
       13                Dunn thus avoiding the problems and expense of handling peracids as                  
       14                mentioned in Witman at column 1, lines 34+.”  (Examiner’s Answer                     
       15                at 4-5.)                                                                             
       16          41. The examiner further found that the Declaration of Dieter Boeckh,                      
       17                Ph.D, dated November 5, 2003 is insufficient to rebut the prima facie                
       18                case of obviousness.  (Examiner’s Answer at 5.)                                      
       19          42. Specifically, the examiner held that the appellant’s allegation of                     
       20                unexpected results in terms of the use of greater amounts of water                   

                                                     12                                                       


Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007