Ex Parte RICHTER et al - Page 9

               Appeal No. 2007-3827                                                                        
               Application 08/713,905                                                                      

               reaction conditions, provide little, if any, guidance.  See, e.g., Wertheim, 541            
               F.2d at 262-65, 191 USPQ at 96-98.                                                          
                      We cannot agree with Appellants’ position that the phrase “in pure                   
               form” in this passage is tantamount to “chemical purity” per se and thus,                   
               synonymous with “hydrolyzable chlorine content” when considered in the                      
               context of the disclosure in the Specification as a whole.  Indeed, there is no             
               disclosure of “hydrolyzable chlorine content” with respect to the claimed                   
               process other than in the illustrative examples, and there is no disclosure in              
               these examples correlating “percent purity (CG)” with “hydrolyzable                         
               chlorine content” in “ppm.”  We note that a “purity” of “99.8%” is listed for               
               two different ether diisocyanates which exhibit a hydrolyzable chlorine                     
               content of 48 ppm and 24 ppm, respectively, even though the products are                    
               prepared by the same process.  Thus, on this record, while hydrolyzable                     
               chlorine content may be attributed to an impurity, it is apparently not the                 
               only impurity present in the product.                                                       
                      Therefore, in the absence of disclosure in the Specification which                   
               describes “hydrolyzable chlorine content” within the claimed range across                   
               the breath of the ether (poly)isocyanate products obtained from any ether                   
               (poly)amine reactant using at least any specified vapor phase reaction                      
               condition within the specified temperature range, one skilled in this art                   
               would not consider Appellants to have been in possession of the claimed                     
               method encompassed by appealed claim 1 at the time the application was                      
               filed.                                                                                      


                                                                                                          
               Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263-64, 191 USPQ at 97.                                               
                                                    9                                                      

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013