The subject matter on appeal is directed to improved processes for preparing aqueous solutions of N-methylol derivatives of carboxamides, urethanes, ureas and aminotriazines and/or the N-methylol ethers of carboxamides, urethanes, ureas and aminotriazines. There are three different aspects of appellant’s claimed invention, each having in common the utilization of a boron containing catalyst. The first aspect, which is the subject of claim 11, concerns a process for preparing aqueous solutions of N-methylol compound of a carboxamide, urethane, urea or aminotriazine comprising reacting said carboxamide, urethane, urea or aminotriazine with formaldehyde using a catalyst selected from the group consisting of boron trifluoride, a boron trifluoride addition compound, tetrafluoroboric acid, and a salt of tetrafluoroboric acid. The second aspect, which is the subject of claims 12 to 18, concerns a process for preparing aqueous solutions of N- methylol ether of a carboxamide, urethane, urea or aminotriazine comprising reacting the corresponding N-methylol compound with an alcohol in the presence of a catalyst selected from the group consisting of boron trifluoride, a boron trifluoride addition compound and tetrafluoroboric acid. The third aspect, which is the subject of claim 19, concerns a process for preparing an aqueous solution of an N-methylol ether of a carboxamide, urethane, urea or aminotriazine comprising reacting said carboxamide, urethane, urea or aminotriazine with formaldehyde and an alcohol in an aqueous solution using a catalyst selected from the group consisting of boron trifluoride, a boron trifluoride addition compound, tetrafluoroboric acid and a salt of tetrafluoroboric acid. The novelty of the three aspects of appellants’ processes resides in the use of the aforementioned catalyst. In the brief, appellants have argued the claims separately as grouped above. Claim 11 is sufficiently representative of the claims on appeal and reads as follows:Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007