Ex parte JAFFE et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 96-0700                                                          
          Application No. 08/153,550                                                  


               The examiner relies upon the following references as                   
          evidence of obviousness:                                                    
          Hein et al. (Hein)                 2,985,661        May  23, 1961           
          Christmann et al. (Christmann)     3,538,095        Nov.  3, 1970           
          Hine, "Quantitative Correlations of Rates and Equilibria,                   
          Physical Organic Chemistry 85-87 and 99 (1962).                             
               Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a process for             
          preparing a fluorescent yellow pigment of the recited formula.              
          The process involves reacting tetrachlorophthalic anhydride with            
          a diaminobenzyl compound, such as o-phenylenediamine, in the                
          presence of either acetic acid or propionic acid as a solvent.              
               Appellants submit at page 3 of the Brief that appealed                 
          claims 1-3, 14 and 15 stand or fall together.                               
               Appealed claims 1-3, 14 and 15 stand rejected under                    
          35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Christmann, taken                
          alone, or in combination with Hein.                                         
               We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments              
          for patentability, as well as the declaration and reference                 
          evidence relied upon in support thereof.  However, we fully                 
          concur with the examiner that the claimed subject matter would              
          have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art           
          within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.               
          Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejection for                   
          essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer.                          
                                         -2-                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007