Appeal No. 2007-0623 Page 3
Application No. 10/380,591
page 6. The Examiner recognizes, however, that Hartmann differs from
Appellants’ claimed process by not teaching the same reactants. Id.
Nevertheless, the Examiner argues that the reactants taught by Hartmann are
analogous to the reactants set forth in Appellants’ claimed invention. In addition,
Appellants assert that Hartmann does not teach compounds of formula 1. In
particular, Appellants emphasize that the formula 1 compounds produced by the
claimed process have a hydroxyl in the R5 position, whereas Hartmann’s
corresponding compound contains a methoxy in the R5 position. Brief, page 5,
see also Answer, page 8. The Examiner finds, however, that Burgess teaches
compounds of formula I. Answer, page 6.
The Examiner finds that Vorozhtzov teaches compounds of formula V and
Hartmann teaches compounds of formula IX. Answer, page 6. Therefore, the
Examiner contends that “[t]he use of analogous reactants in a known process[, to
produce a known product,] is prima facie obvious.” Id. Therefore, the Examiner
concludes
[o]ne skilled in the art would . . . be motivated to use analogous
reactants in the process of Hartmann . . . to arrive at the instant
claimed process with the expectation of preparing known
benzotriazole products, which are building blocks for optical
brighteners and as active components in laser dyes.
Answer, page 7. Stated differently, it would have been prima facie obvious to
substitute the formula V compound of Vorozhtzov into Hartmann’s process to
produce the formula I compound taught by Burgess.
Appellants do not address the teachings of Burgess, Vorozhtzov or
Lindley. Therefore, we find Appellants concede to the Examiner’s findings
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013