Appeal No. 94-3134
Application 07/848,884
hexamethylene-tetramine “must” be used in conjunction with a
furan derivative. Secondly, even if the appellant were
correct, it would still be proper to conclude that Moradi-
Araghi would have suggested replacing Mumallah’s aldehyde with
a combination of an aldehyde-generating compound such as
hexamethylenetetramine and a furan derivative. In this latter
regard, we here clarify that the appealed claims under
consideration do not exclude the presence of a furan
derivative.
The appellant also argues that “[t]he Examiner was in
error in rejecting claims 1-28 under 35 USC § 103 over Moradi-
Araghi and Mumallah..., even if combinable, because the
invention demonstrates unexpected results” (Brief, page 6).
This argument
is further developed by the appellant on page 7 of the Brief
in the following manner:
As discussed above, appellant discovered
that two aldehyde-generating compounds,
glyoxal and 1,3,5-trioxane, did not react
with phenol to form a useful composition.
See, specifi-cation, pages 18-22, Examples
IV-V. Wishing not to be bound by theory,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007