Appeal No. 2007-3827
Application 08/713,905
extraction or film distillation, or recovered as raw product (solution)”
(Specification 5:16-21). The ether (poly)isocyanate products produced in
processes exemplified in Examples 1-4 are diisocyanates, and are all
prepared by the process steps stated in Example 1. The products prepared in
these examples are all defined by “% of the theoretical yield,” percent
“purity (GC),” percent “NCO content” compared to percent “theoretical,”
and “[h]ydrolyzable chlorine content” in “ppm.” Specification, e.g., 8:22-
29, and 9:7-9, 14-16, and 22-24. The “purity” and “hydrolyzable chlorine
content” of the products of Examples 1-4 are: 99.7% and 43 ppm; 99.8% and
48 ppm; 99.5% and 34 ppm; and 99.8% and 24 ppm, respectively (id.). The
process exemplified in Example 5 produces an ether monoisocyanate species
by the process steps stated in Example 1 with “purity” and “[h]ydrolyzable
chlorine content” of 99.1% and 44 pm, respectively (Specification 9:25-
10:3).
We find no disclosure of a range of hydrolyzable chlorine content in
ppm or otherwise in so many words in the disclosure of the Specification
and original claims, or any disclosure therein correlating any process
limitation with the hydrolyzable chlorine content now specified in appealed
claim 1.
We find that the record supports the Examiner’s position that, prima
facie, as a matter of fact the written description in the Specification as a
whole as filed does not describe to one skilled in this art the range of
hydrolyzable chlorine content in ppm of the product ether (poly)isocyanates
prepared by the process specified in appealed claim 1. Indeed, the Examiner
has presented evidence and reasons why this persons would not recognize in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013