Appeal No 2007-0310
Application No 10/260,498
comparative example one after neutralization with nitric acid a neutral salt is
deposited.” (Answer 7.) The Examiner concludes that it would have been
“obvious to substitute dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid . . . as the neutralizing
acid in the process of Herold.” (Answer 5.)
The Examiner argues that the ethoxylation temperature of claim 10
would have the obvious “because changes in the temperature of an old
process do[] not impart patentability unless the recited temperature range is
critical, i.e., it produces a new and unexpected result.” (Answer 5.)
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
the method of claim 10 would have been obvious. Herold describes a
“process for obtaining polypropylene or polybutylene ether polyols prepared
with a double metal cyanide complex catalyst” that “makes it possible to add
ethylene oxide to the polyol and give polyether polyols containing high
amounts of primary hydroxyl groups” (Herold, col. 2, l. 64, to col. 3, l. 5).
The method comprises removing “the double metal cyanide complex
catalyst residues . . . by treating the catalyst residue contained in the polyols
with a strong base, thereby converting it into ionic species which can be
removed by ion exchange or by neutralization and filtration,” and “adding
ethylene oxide during or after the base treatment and prior to ion exchange
or neutralization and filtration” to cap the polyols with primary hydroxyl
groups (id. at col. 2, ll. 55-63).
Doerge states that “a considerable amount of polyether polyol is lost”
in removing precipitated salt from a polyether polyol and “the removed salt
and polyol can pose a disposal problem” (Doerge, col. 1, ll. 23-28). Doerge
describes a process for preparing polyether polyols in the presence of an
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013