Ex parte SAMEER H. ELDIN et al. - Page 7

          Appeal No. 95-5080                                                           
          Application 07/952,122                                                       

          III.  Claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.             
           103 as being unpatentable over Henton in view of Lee.                      
                    The examiner points to Henton as showing a composition             
          comprising a liquid bisphenol A epoxy resin pre-reacted with                 
          bisphenol A (col. 3, lines 2-3), a core/shell polymer (col. 6,               
          lines 29-31), a hardener (col. 6, lines 41-43) and fillers (col.             
          2, line 53).  The examiner indicates that Henton does not show               
          the claimed anhydride hardener and he relies upon Lee to show                
          alicyclic carboxylic anhydrides with amine accelerators such as              
          benzyldimethyl amine (Table 12-6) as a hardening system for epoxy            
          resins.  The examiner has reasoned that one of ordinary skill in             
          the art would have found it obvious to harden the Henton epoxy               
          resins with the hardeners of Lee since Henton himself                        
          acknowledges the use of such hardeners from Lee in order to                  
          attain the proper balance of high temperature hardening without              
          undue weight loss.                                                           
                    In making this rejection, the examiner has taken the               
          position that components a) and d) of the instant claim are                  
          satisfied by the preadvanced diglycidyl ether because the claims             


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007