Appeal No. 2006-2247
Reexamination Nos. 90/006,554 and 90/006,894
1 Differences between the Claimed Invention and the Prior Art
2
3 As noted earlier, the appealed claims read on a process wherein the acid
4 component and the catalyst may be one and the same material. At oral argument,
5 the appellant’s counsel agreed with this interpretation.
6 Like the claimed process, Witman’s process as described in Example V
7 carries out N-oxidation of a pyridinic molecule in an aqueous hydrogen peroxide
8 solution in which the water content is greater than 25% in the presence of a catalyst
9 of an acid of 6b of the periodic table (molybdic acid). Thus, we find that Witman’s
10 process as described in Example V is the closest prior art. This prior art process
11 differs from the invention recited in appealed claim 1 only in that the N-oxidation
12 is applied to pyridine instead of polyvinylpyridine.
13
14 Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
15 We find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a working
16 knowledge in various areas of expertise including (but not limited to) catalysis and
17 complex polymer science. This level is reflected in the teachings of the applied
18 prior art. Litton Industrial Products, Inc. v. Solid State Systems Corp., 755 F.2d
19 158, 163, 225 USPQ 34, 38 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
20
21
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007