Appeal No. 2006-3254
Application No. 10/347,982
4. HAAS
Claims 8 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Haas.5 The Examiner states that Haas “teaches a process for producing
pressed materials such as wood particle boards, wherein ammonium salts
from the reaction of amines with malonic acid are used as catalysts (see
abstract . . . )”; “teaches forming the dimethylaminoethanol salt of malonic
acid as an activator”; and “teaches forming the salts by combining sufficient
quantities of the amines with malonic acid to provide a desired molar ratio,
such as 2 moles of amine per 1 mole of malonic acid (see column 6, line 60
through column 7, line 20 . . . ).” (Answer 11.)
The Examiner states that Haas “does not specifically teach that the
malonic acid salt has a ratio of half-neutralized to fully neutralized acid” in
the range recited in claim 8. (Id.) However, the Examiner concludes that:
as Haas et al. provides instructions for forming the malonic acid
salt, and furthermore instructs the amount of the reactants that
can be combined in molar ratios, it is considered that one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
would have found it obvious to vary and/or optimize the molar
ratios of the reactants to provide a product having a [claimed]
mixture of fully and partially neutralized salt.
(Answer 11-12.)
Appellants argue that Haas “provides no disclosure with respect to a
half-neutralized acid salt. . . . The Examiner has not set forth a prima facie
case of obviousness.” (Br. 11.)
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not provided a prima
facie case that the salt of claim 8 would have been obvious over Haas. One
5 Haas et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,007,649, issued December 28, 1999.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013