Appeal No. 95-0318
Application 08/031,046
We fully concur with appellants that the examiner has not
established on this record that Scheuerlein describes the claimed
step of forming a copolymer to support the § 102 rejection, nor
does the reference suggest forming the claimed copolymer to
support an obviousness rejection under § 103. It is apparently
the examiner’s position that since Scheuerlein discloses heating
a composition comprising a polyimide and a thermally decomposable
polymer, the claimed copolymer would inherently be formed in the
referenced process. However, we find that the clear teaching of
the reference militates against a finding of inherency.
Scheuerlein discloses a composition comprising a coalescible
polyimide powder and a solid particulate polymer of formaldehyde,
which composition is heated to a temperature above 300EC to
coalesce the polyimide particles and obtain a porous polyimide
shaped article (column 5, lines 37-40). Scheuerlein expressly
teaches that the product formed is a porous polyimide shaped
article, not a polyimide copolymer. Also, Scheuerlein discloses
that the solid particulate polymer of formaldehyde pyrolyses
cleanly to formaldehyde gas and is evolved from the preform
without leaving a formaldehyde residue in the preform product
(column 5, lines 44-51). Such a clean evolution of formaldehyde
gas would not suggest that the particulate polymer of
formaldehyde reacts with the polyimide to form a copolymer. That
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007