Appeal 2006-2775
Application 10/606,399
exclude the use of phenols. As such, Appellants’ arguments are not
persuasive.
Appellants’ arguments regarding claims 10 and 20 have been fully
considered. Claims 10 and 20 further define the independent claims, 1 and
11 respectively, by providing a list of suitable alcohol components. The list
of suitable alcohol components includes methanol. As discussed above,
methanol is disclosed by Adkins to be suitable for the disclosed process.
CONCLUSION
Based upon consideration of the present record, including all of
Appellants’ arguments presented in the Briefs, we determine that the
Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness which has not
been adequately rebutted by Appellants. Accordingly, we affirm the
rejection of claims 1, 9 to 11, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2004).
AFFIRMED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007