Appeal No. 96-2574
Application 08/264,264
The appeal is from a decision of the Primary Examiner
rejecting claims 17-18, 20, 23-24 and 27-28 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Japanese patent 06-
111627, published April 22, 1994. We reverse.
The difference between the claimed process and the
process described in the Japanese patent is that applicants
claim the use of a polyoxyalkylenediamine (second formula in
claim 17) to make a polyesterimide resin whereas the Japanese
patent describes only the use of alkylene diamines (e.g.,
ethylene diamine and trimethylenediamine) and aromatic
diamines (e.g., 4,4'-diamino-diphenyl methane and 4,4'-
diaminodiphenyl ether) (translation, pages 12-13). On the
record before us, we find no reason (sometimes referred to as
a teaching, a suggestion or motivation), for substituting a
polyxoyalkylenediamine in the process described in the
Japanese patent for making polyesterimides.
To be sure there is an unchallenged statement by the
examiner (final rejection, page 4) that "the use of
polyoxyalkylenediamines to produce polyesterimides is well
known in the art." However, the mere fact that a
polyoxyalkylene-diamine may have been used to make some
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007