Appeal No. 1995-1539
Application No. 07/950,388
According to appellant (Brief, page 3),
claims 1 and 2 rise or fall together.
However, claims 3 and 5 [sic, 4 and 5] have
additional limitations which even more
clearly demonstrate patentability over the
cited art.
Appellant, however, has supplied no substantive arguments for
the separate patentability of claim 4. See Brief, Applicant’s
Response to the Examiner’s Answer (Reply Brief), and
Supplemental Reply Brief in their entirety. Therefore, for
purposes of this appeal, we will limit our discussion to
claims 1 and 5 which are reproduced below:
1. A process for making a composition of matter, said
process comprising the steps of chemically reacting
substituted 4-hydroxystyrene to form said composition
characterized in that said substituted 4-hydroxystyrene is
made by treating a protected phenol with a base and
interaction in the presence of base of the resulting
deprotected phenol with a reagent comprising a member of the
group consisting of an acid halide, a halogen substituted
alkyl, a dicarbonate, and an acid anhydride wherein said
substituted 4-hydroxystyrene undergoes said chemical reaction
without previous distillation.
5. The process of claim 1 wherein said acid chloride
comprises a compound of the formula X - SO R’’’ where X is a
2
halogen and R’’’ is aryl or alkyl.
As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject
matter, the examiner relies on the following prior art:
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007