Appeal 2006-2329
Application 10/211,381
that it would have been obvious to utilize a reaction catalyst absent a
primary or secondary amine in the formation of a carbon phenol molding
resin compound. As indicated above, the Example 4 of Ide is directed to a
different embodiment that requires substantially different reaction conditions
in order to produce an electromagnetic shielding material. The Examiner
has not relied on other evidence to establish that the carbon phenol molding
resin could have been made with a different catalyst.
For the foregoing reasons, and those presented in the Brief, we
determine that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness.
Our discussion of the issues relative to claim 1 above apply equally to
claim 11, the other independent claim.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 5-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) and
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
cam
David T. Nikaido
RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER, PLLC
Suite 501
1233 20th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: November 3, 2007