Appeal No. 2006-2247
Reexamination Nos. 90/006,554 and 90/006,894
1 54. BASF does not identify any meaningful comparative experimental
2 evidence establishing that the differences between the invention as
3 broadly recited in the appealed claims and the closest prior art
4 (Witman’s Example V) leads to results that would have been
5 considered by one of ordinary skill in the art to be truly unexpected.
6
7 II. DISCUSSION
8 The Claimed Subject Matter
9 As a preliminary matter, we note that the appellant has argued claims 1-4
10 and 6 as a group and claim 5 separately. (Appeal Brief at 7-20.) Accordingly, we
11 confine our discussion to claims 1 and 5, with claims 2-4 and 6 standing or falling
12 with claim 1. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(vii)(2005)(effective September 13, 2004). These
13 claims are reproduced for convenience as follows:
14 1. A process for preparing polyvinylpyridine N-oxides,
15 comprising:
16 oxidizing polyvinylpyridines in an aqueous hydrogen peroxide
17 solution having a water content of at least 25% in the presence of an
18 acid and a catalyst of an oxide, acid or salt thereof of an element of
19 Group 5b, 6b, 7b or 8.
20
21 5. The process of claim 1, wherein the oxidation is conducted
22 in the presence of from 0.1 to 1% by weight of sodium tungstate,
23 phosphotungstic acid, tungstic acid, sodium molybdate,
24 phosphomolybdic acid, molybdic acid or mixtures thereof.
25
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007