Appeal No. 2006-2694
Application No. 09/910,968
2. The process of claim 1 wherein the nitroxyl-containing inhibitor is of
the following structural formula:
wherein
R1 and R4 are independently selected from the group consisting of
hydrogen, alkyl, and heteroatom-substituted alkyl;
R2 and R3 are independently selected from the group consisting of alkyl and
heteroatom-substituted alkyl; and
X1 and X2
(1) are independently selected from the group consisting of halogen, cyano,
amido, -S-C6H5, carbonyl, alkenyl, alkyl of 1 to 15 carbon atoms,
COOR7, -S-COR7, and -OCOR7, wherein R7 is alkyl or aryl, or
(2) taken together, form a ring structure with the nitrogen.
9. The process of claim 1 wherein the distillation is a continuous
operation.
18. The process of claim 2 wherein the inhibitor is a blend of two
nitroxyls.
Because the body of claim 1 recites an improvement to the process
recited in the preamble, claim 1 is a Jepson format claim. See Sjolund v.
Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 6 USPQ2d 2020 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “[T]he
preamble of a Jepson claim is impliedly admitted to be prior art.” Id. at
1577, 6 USPQ2d at 2023.
Thus, claim 1 impliedly acknowledges that a process using distillation
means to prepare unsaturated monomers in the presence of nitroxyl
inhibitors was known in the art, as was the fact that the nitroxyl inhibitor
was removed downstream of the distillation means and returned to the
process ahead of the distillation means. The body of the claim requires the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013