Appeal 2006-2775
Application 10/606,399
Appellants’ arguments about the results achieved in the Adkins
examples have been considered. These arguments are not persuasive
because, as stated above, the claimed invention does not exclude the use of
methanol in combination with a reducing agent. Moreover, the results
achieved in Adkins’ examples do not detract from the statements appearing
in column 2 of the reference that discloses the suitability of using methanol
as a quench in the disclosed invention.
The Examiner asserts that the 2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-methylphenol
disclosed by Adkins as a reducing agent would meet the requirement for at
least one alcohol as specified in independent claims 1 and 11. It is the
Examiner’s position that a phenol is an alcohol (See Answer 5). Appellants
argue that “[e]ven if one technically considers phenol to be an alcohol, its
properties are quite different than the general properties of alcohols. It is
submitted by Appellants, that this reference does not specifically disclose
phenol. Rather, it discloses hindered phenols” (Br. 8).
We agree with the position presented by the Examiner. A review of
the present specification does not limit the characteristics of the alcohol
component. That is, the claimed invention is not limited to the general
properties of alcohols as argued by Appellants. The Specification, page 6,
provides a list of preferred alcohol components. This list discloses a
preference for certain alcohol species; however, it does not expressly
ingredients. See, e.g., In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686-87, 210 USPQ 795,
802-03 (CCPA 1981).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007