Patent Application 14747327 - ACTIVATED CARBON HAVING CATALYTIC ACTIVITY

Title: ACTIVATED CARBON HAVING CATALYTIC ACTIVITY

Application Information

Invention Title: ACTIVATED CARBON HAVING CATALYTIC ACTIVITY
Application Number: 14747327
Submission Date: 2025-04-09T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2015-06-23T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2015-06-23T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 502
National Sub-Class: 180000
Examiner Employee Number: 85250
Art Unit: 1738
Tech Center: 1700

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

US 0092560🔗
US 0094812🔗

Office Action Text

DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11, 15 and 28 are currently under examination. Claims 18-27 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 12-14 and 16-17 have been cancelled. Claims 1 and 28 are amended.
Priority
Certified English translation for the foreign priority documents have not been submitted yet.
Once applicants submit certified English translations for the foreign priority documents, the effective filing date will be 12/20/2005 and 03/09/2006.
Previous Grounds of Rejection
Regarding claims 1-11, 15 and 18, in the ligand of the amendments, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, is withdrawn.
Regarding claims 1-11, 15 and 28, in the ligand of the amendments, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Von Blucher et al. PCT/EP01/04615 (herein referred to under the equivalent of US 2003/0092560) in view of Podszun et al. (US 2006/0094812) is amended as set forth below.
The rejection is substantially the same as generally set in the office action mailed on 02/07/2025.
Amended Grounds of Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.

The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-11, 15 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Von Blucher et al. PCT/EP01/04615 (herein referred to under the equivalent of US 2003/0092560) in view of Podszun et al. (US 2006/0094812).
Regarding claim 1, Von Blucher et al. teach a process for producing activated carbon in spherical form by carbonization and activation of polymer spherules based on styrene and divinylbenzene (Abstract). The polymer spherules contain chemical groups (particularly sulfonic acid, Abstract) leading to the formation of free radicals and thus to cross-linkages by their thermal decomposition (Abstract, [0011]-[0070], claims 1-16).
Polymeric starting material in which the functional chemical groups leading to cross-linkages during the carbonization or pyrolysis steps, particularly sulfonic acid groups, are already present in the actual starting material, can be contaminated with metal ions which are them present in the final product as a catalytic metal impregnation ([0026]).
The catalytically active metal including silver is used in impregnation and the activated carbon product obtained comprises the silver ([0060]).
During the carbonization the organic polymer spherules based on styrene and divinylbenzene and containing functional chemical groups (particularly sulfonic acid groups, are destroyed and free radicals are formed that cause strong cross-linkages--in the absence of which there would not exist a pyrolysis residue (i. e. carbon) after all. In general, pyrolysis is conducted in an inert atmosphere (e. g. nitrogen) at a temperature ranges from about 5000C to 6500C which is encompassed by the instant claimed carbonization temperature range ([0015]).
The activation is carried out with a mixture of steam (water-vapor) and N2 (applicant’s an inert atmosphere) and particularly at temperatures of from about 8500C to 9600C ([0037]) which is encompassed the instant claimed activation step temperature ranges, particularly with a residence time of about 2 hours ([0021] and claim 11).
However, Von Blucher et al. do not specifically disclose the use of interpolymer as per applicant claim 1.
Podszun et al. teach a method for preparing silver-containing polymer beads by polymerization of a mixture of styrene, divinylbenzene, crosslinkers, silver behenate (corresponding to applicant’s metal), dibenzoyl peroxide (free radical initiator).
The organic silver salt is partly or completely soluble in the mixture of monomer (i.e., styrene) and crosslinker (divinylbenzene). The activated silver-containing monomer mixture is dispersed by means of a dispersant in a water phase. The produced uniform beads having an average particle size of 380 um and silver content 0.1%wt (abstract, [0006]-[0034]). Therefore, the silver metal would expect be intergrated into the polymerization mixture.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute polymer of Von Blucher et al. with a mixture of styrene, divinylbenzene, crosslinkers, silver behenate (corresponding to applicant’s metal) and dibenzoyl peroxide (free radical initiator) of Podszun et al. to obtain the invention as specified in the claim 1, motivated by the fact that resulting polymer beads are outstandingly suitable for producing spherical activated carbon by carbonization reaction ([0030]).
Since both Von Blucher et al. and Podszun et al. teach ion-exchange resin use for carbonization reactions (Von Blucher [0026], and Podszun et al. [0005] and [0030]), one would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Although neither Von Blucher et al. nor Podszun et al. specific disclose a shortened to a reduced duration time for activation of carbonaceous organic polymers thus forming a fully activated carbon loaded with metal Ag compared with not comprising Ag metal as per applicant claim 1, the shortened duration in activation step is due to the interpolymerization of metal such as organic silver salt into carbonaceous organic polymers.
Von Blucher et al. teach the presence of silver in the carbon material and Podszun et al. teach silver in polymer beads that can be used for forming spherical activated carbon, and provides a basis for obviousness.
The reduced activation duration would naturally flow from the combination because the same materials are formed and subsequently activated. The claim does not require any particular degree of reduction in the duration, so any reduction will read on the claim. It is reasonable to expect that the addition of metal during interpolymerization to have the same result of reducing, to at least some degree, the duration of the activation step.
Since the combined references of Von Blucher et al. and Podszun et al. teach all of the claimed reagents, composition and method of making an activated carbon, the time for activation step (i.e., less activation time to forming a fully activated carbon loaded with Ag, etc.) would necessarily follow as set forth in MPEP 2112.01(II).[1]
The substantially similar process would expect to achieve the substantially similar advantages including shorten activation time.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above, Podszun et al teach the use of silver salt as per applicant claim 2 (abstract).
Regarding claim 3, the polymers used by Von Blucher et al. are in spherical form and have diameters up to approx. 1.5 mm. It meets the claimed limitations ([0024]).
Regarding claim 4, the polymers taught by Von Blucher et al. is selected from polystyrene polymer and divinylbenzene crosslinked polymers (claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, the polymers taught by Von Blucher et al. has up to 20% divinylbenzene, which meets the claimed limitations ([0022]).
Regarding claims 6 and 10-11, as discussed above, silver behenate taught by Podszun et al. is dispersed in polymerization mixture as the instant claims. The produced uniform beads having an average particle size of 380 um and silver content 0.1%wt (abstract, [0006]-[0034]).
Regarding claims 7-8, silver behenate taught by Podszun et al. is about 5%wt by weight based on the polymer ([0033]).
Regarding claim 9 the polymer taught by Podszun et al. is formed by free radical polymerization ([0033]).
Regarding claim 15, the carbonization and the activation taught by Von Blucher et al. is carried out in a rotary tube as per applicant claim 15 ([0042]).
Regarding claim 28, Since the combined references of Von Blucher et al. and Podszun et al. teach all of the claimed reagents (Ag metal, polystyrene-divinylbenzene copolymer having sulphonic acid groups, etc.) composition and method of making an activated carbon, the time for activation step (i.e., less activation time upto 57% comparing without metal, etc.) would necessarily follow as set forth in MPEP 2112.01(II).
Response to Arguments
With regards to the previous Grounds of Rejection
Applicant's arguments and Declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.130 submitted by Dr. Bohringer filed on 02/24/2025, with respect to claims 1-11, 15 and 28 have been considered but are not persuasive. The examiner would like to take this opportunity to address the Applicant's arguments.
Applicant argued Dr. Bohringer stated the subject matter found in paragraph of the Podszun et al. obtained directly from De Ruiter(See Remarks, pages 11-12 and Declaration).
The Declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.130 has been considered but are not persuasive. The Office would like to take this opportunity to address the applicant’s arguments. The affidavit under 37 C.F.R. 1.130 is that there is no reasonable explanation of the other inventor’s role in the Podszun PGPUB.
How did Dr. Bertram Kurt Bohringer know that the others (Wolfgang Podszun, Reinhold Klipper, Olaf Hale, Rudolf Wagner) named on the prior art of Podszun et al. who did not also contribute to the idea of using the invention for producing spherical activated carbon? There are five inventors in the prior art of Podszun et al.
In addition, as set forth in the previous office actions, the rejection relies on Podszun et al. for more than just paragraph [0030]. Podszun teach a method for preparing silver-containing polymer beads by polymerization of a mixture of styrene, divinylbenzene, crosslinkers, silver behenate (corresponding to applicant’s metal), dibenzoyl peroxide (free radical initiator). The organic silver salt is partly or completely soluble in the mixture of monomer (i.e. styrene) and crosslinker (divinylbenzene). The activated silver-containing monomer mixture is dispersed by means of a dispersant in a water phase. The produced uniform beads having an average particle size of 380 um and silver content 0.1%wt (abstract, [0006]-[0034]).
Even if paragraph [0030] of Podszun et al. is attributable to de Ruiter, what about the rest of the relevant Podszun et al. disclosure?
Did De Ruiter invent only what is in [0030] and the other inventors invented everything else? The affidavit states that the inventors of Podszun obtained the subject matter from De Ruiter while De Ruiter was employed by Blucher. But the affidavit also states that the Podszun inventor/employees were former Bayer AG employees who became employed by Lanxess. The Podszun PGPUB lists De Ruiter as an inventor so it is presumed that De Ruiter was also an inventor/employee of Lanxess. The Podszun application claims priority to 2004 and De Ruiter’s employment with timeframe with Blucher does not appear to be established in the affidavit, only his retirement in 2005.
As such, the rejection of claim 1 as set forth above, is proper and stands.
The rejection for the remaining claims 2-11, 15 and 28, were either directly or indirectly dependent thereon stands.

Applicant further argued there is no teaching in either the ‘812 application or the ‘560application that the activation step must be shortened to a reduced duration in order to carbonize and activate a carbonaceous organic polymer having a metal interpolymerized therein to a desired level of activation (Remarks, page 14).
Assuming in arguendo that a carbonization and activation process according to the '560 application were utilized starting with the '812 metal loaded polymer, it would necessarily have to include a shortened activation step, or the product would be overactivated and useless for its intended purpose. Further, neither the '812 application or the '560 application teach an activation step shortened to a reduced duration compared to the duration required for the activation step of the polymer not comprising a metal.
These results clearly demonstrate that Applicant's claimed method involving the carbonization and activation of a carbonaceous organic polymer having an interpolymerized metal therein requires different process parameters and is thus a fully different process.
The carbonization and activation of an ion-exchange resin contaminated with minor levels of metals randomly present on the ion-exchange resin is fully different than the carbonization of a carbonaceous organic polymer having a metal interpolymerized therein...the material carbonized and activated according to the Applicant's pending claims. Any metals contaminating on an ion-exchange resin are randomly distributed over the surface of the resin (rather than distributed homogeneously throughout the polymer) and more than a trivial component would cause a non-controllable inhomogeneous activation leading to surface hot spots and a resulting undefined pore structure. Additionally, such a contaminated ion-exchange resin is a fully different material than Applicant's starting material...a carbonaceous organic polymer having a metal interpolymerized therein...randomly distributed therein. For this reason, the mention of the carbonization and activation of an ion-exchange resin is simply not relevant to Applicant's claimed method requiring a different starting material (Remarks, pages 14-16).
Read literally, the '812 application teaches that an activated carbon can be produced by no more than a carbonization process, suggesting that an activation step is not required. Neither the '812 application or the '560 application teach the need to utilize an activation step shortened to a reduced duration.
The cited references do not teach at all the elements of the claimed invention. Specifically, the combination of the '850 application and the '560 application fails to teach a process including the carbonization and activation of a carbonaceous organic polymer having a metal interpolymerized therein having an activation step shortened to a reduced duration compared to the same carbonaceous organic polymer lacking a metal incorporated therein...incorporated therein through interpolymerization. Therefore, the combination of the '852 application and the '560 application does not show every element of the claimed invention and a prima facie case for obviousness has not been made. This specific claim element is neither disclosed, taught, or suggested by the cited art, either alone or in combination.
Applicant respectfully agrees that the shortened duration was due to the presence of the metal salt included in the carbonaceous organic polymer carbonized and activated...that is the teaching of Applicant's specification. However, this teaching is fully absent from the '812 and '560 applications. No other art has been cited that provides such a teaching.
Applicant argued that taking Official Notice of this specific claim element is improper based on the current showing and that consistent with current case-law this feature is not inherent (the latter discussed below).
As noted in MPEP 2141.02 V: Obviousness cannot be predicated on what is not known at the time an invention is made, even if the inherency of a certain feature is later established. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.2d 1531, 28 USPQ2d 1955 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See MPEP § 2112 for the requirements of rejections based on inherency (Remarks, pages 17-23).
Applicant argued that because the impact of the metal on the duration of the activation step of Applicant's claimed process was not known at the time of Applicant's invention, it would be improper to find that the shortened duration in activation step resulting from the interpolymerization of a metal, such as organic silver salt, into carbonaceous organic polymers was inherent in the disclosures of the '812 application, the '560 application, or their combination.
Applicant's pending claims were rejected as obvious because the basic process in question, without reference to an activation step having a shortened duration, was arguably old and taught in the cited prior art.
Applicant developed and claimed a process for carbonizing and activating a carbonaceous organic polymer including a metal therein by shortening the duration of the activation step. The claimed process required an activation step shortened to a reduced duration compared to the activation step required for the same carbonaceous organic polymer not comprising the metal.
Upon limiting or shortening the duration of the activation step, the carbonized material including a metal incorporated therein was not overactivated resulting in the loss of carbon material and the production of an unsuitable product.
It was surprising and completely unexpected that the step of incorporating a metal component into a carbonaceous organic polymer, according to Applicant's claimed method, would provide a starting material that, after carbonization, could be activated, in substantially less time (at least 50% less time) than the same carbonaceous organic polymer not including the metal. Activation, according to the prior art methods, regarding times and temperatures, would over-activate the metal-containing carbon particles and result in loss of carbon material. The cited art provides no suggestion that the presence of metals in carbonaceous organic polymer can speed up the subsequent steps involved in converting the material into an activated carbon.
According to Applicant's specification the activation duration is reduced by at least 50% compared to the same carbonaceous organic polymer not including the metal. I am also surprised that the presence of the metal did not negatively affect the carbonization and activation steps necessary to produce the metal containing activated carbon (See Bohringer Declaration, dated January 11, 2017, paragraph 8).
This result was not expected...not a predictable result of the carbonization and activation of a carbonaceous organic polymer including a metal interpolymerized therein. The greater advantages of the process include: a) a substantial reduction in energy requirements for the activation step, b) a reduction in processing costs and c) the production of a superior metal containing activated carbon.
As noted in Applicant's specification, further advantages accrue based on the claimed process including which include: " a homogeneous loading of the metal component throughout the activated particle. Applicant's claimed process provides an activated carbon having structural differences when compared to the prior art materials that create advantageous properties.
Discovery of the method of carbonizing and activating a carbonaceous organic polymer including a metal interpolymerized therein wherein the activation step is shortened to a reduced duration compared to the duration required for the activation step of the same polymer not comprising the metal was not known prior to Applicants' discovery, in the same way that the optimum ratio of the tank volume to contactor area noted in In re Antoine prior to that discovery.
Nothing in the cited art teaches or suggests that the incorporation of a metal into a carbonaceous organic polymer could accelerate the rate of activation of the carbonized organic polymer sufficiently to allow the activation step to be shortened to a reduced duration to provide for a reduction in processing costs and a superior metal containing activated carbon. As a result, according to MPEP 2141.02 I, MPEP 2141.02 V, and the decision in In re Antonie, the combination of the '812 application and the '560 application cannot support a prima facie case of obviousness when the claimed invention is examined as a whole (Remarks, pages 23-28 and Bohringer Declaration).
The Office respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the previous office actions and the discussion above, Von Blucher et al. teach a process for producing activated carbon in spherical form by carbonization and activation of polymer spherules based on styrene and divinylbenzene (Abstract). The polymer spherules contain chemical groups (particularly sulfonic acid, Abstract) leading to the formation of free radicals and thus to cross-linkages by their thermal decomposition (Abstract, [0011]-[0070], claims 1-16).
Polymeric starting material in which the functional chemical groups leading to cross-linkages during the carbonization or pyrolysis steps, particularly sulfonic acid groups, are already present in the actual starting material, can be contaminated with metal ions which are them present in the final product as a catalytic metal impregnation ([0026]).
The catalytically active metal including silver is used in impregnation and the activated carbon product obtained comprises the silver ([0060]).
During the carbonization the organic polymer spherules based on styrene and divinylbenzene and containing functional chemical groups (particularly sulfonic acid groups, are destroyed and free radicals are formed that cause strong cross-linkages-in the absence of which there would not exist a pyrolysis residue (i. e. carbon) after all. In general, pyrolysis is conducted in an inert atmosphere (e. g. nitrogen) at a temperature ranges from about 5000C to 6500C which is encompassed by the instant claimed carbonization temperature range ([0015]).
The activation is carried out with a mixture of steam (water-vapor) and N2 (applicant’s an inert atmosphere) and particularly at temperatures of from about 8500C to 9600C ([0037]) which is encompassed the instant claimed activation step temperature ranges, particularly with a residence time of about 2 hours ([0021] and claim 11).
However, Von Blucher et al. do not specifically disclose the use of interpolymer as per applicant claim 1.
Podszun et al. teach a method for preparing silver-containing polymer beads by polymerization of a mixture of styrene, divinylbenzene, crosslinkers, silver behenate (corresponding to applicant’s metal), dibenzoyl peroxide (free radical initiator).
The organic silver salt is partly or completely soluble in the mixture of monomer (i.e., styrene) and crosslinker (divinylbenzene). The activated silver-containing monomer mixture is dispersed by means of a dispersant in a water phase. The produced uniform beads having an average particle size of 380 um and silver content 0.1%wt (abstract, [0006]-[0034]). Therefore, the silver metal would expect be intergrated into the polymerization mixture.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute polymer of Von Blucher et al. with a mixture of styrene, divinylbenzene, crosslinkers, silver behenate (corresponding to applicant’s metal) and dibenzoyl peroxide (free radical initiator) of Podszun et al. to obtain the invention as specified in the claim 1, motivated by the fact that resulting polymer beads are outstandingly suitable for producing spherical activated carbon by carbonization reaction ([0030]).
Since both Von Blucher et al. and Podszun et al. teach ion-exchange resin use for carbonization reactions (Von Blucher [0026], and Podszun et al. [0005] and [0030]), one would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Although neither Von Blucher et al. nor Podszun et al. specific disclose a shortened to a reduced duration time for activation of carbonaceous organic polymers thus forming a fully activated carbon loaded with metal Ag compared with not comprising Ag metal as per applicant claim 1, the shortened duration in activation step is due to the interpolymerization of metal such as organic silver salt into carbonaceous organic polymers.
Von Blucher et al. teach the presence of silver in the carbon material and Podszun et al. teach silver in polymer beads that can be used for forming spherical activated carbon, and provides a basis for obviousness.
The reduced activation duration would naturally flow from the combination because the same materials are formed and subsequently activated. The claim does not require any particular degree of reduction in the duration, so any reduction will read on the claim. It is reasonable to expect that the addition of metal during interpolymerization to have the same result of reducing, to at least some degree, the duration of the activation step.
Since the combined references of Von Blucher et al. and Podszun et al. teach all of the claimed reagents, composition and method of making an activated carbon, the time for activation step (i.e., less activation time to forming a fully activated carbon loaded with Ag, etc.) would necessarily follow as set forth in MPEP 2112.01(II).[1]
The substantially similar process would expect to achieve the substantially similar advantages including shorten activation time.
Applicant’s arguments against the reference of Podszun et al. are not found persuasive.
Because, note that while Von Blucher et al. do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Podszun et al. is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely the use of interpolymer, and in combination with the reference of Von Blucher et al, discloses the presently claimed invention as set forth above.
As such, the rejection of claim 1 as set forth above, is proper and stands.
The rejection for the remaining claims 2-11, 15 and 28, were either directly or indirectly dependent thereon stands.
As such, the rejection of claim 1 as set forth above, is proper and stands.
The rejection for the remaining claims 2-11, 15 and 28, were either directly or indirectly dependent thereon stands.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUN QIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sally A Merkling can be reached on 571-272-6297. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.

YUN . QIAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1732

/YUN QIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738

[1][1] “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).