Appeal No. 1995-1539
Application No. 07/950,388
would react in a conventional manner with a 4-
hydroxy styrene salt generated in situ.... that
sulfonated esters of 4-hydroxy esters of 4-
hydroxystyrene would have the same or similar
utility as the alkoxycarbonyloxystyrene [sic,
alkoxycarbony-
loxystyrene] (e.g., utility as monomers
used in the manufacture of polymers).
Appellant does not dispute the above findings and conclusion.
Appellant only argues that the above prior art references do
not teach, nor would have suggested, chemically reacting a
substituted 4-hydroxystyrene without previous distillation.
However, we are not persuaded by this argument for the reasons
indicated supra. Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s
decision
rejecting claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined
disclosures of Nader, Kvakovszky, Pine and the admitted prior
art.
We turn next to the § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 and
5 over the combined disclosures of Pine and the admitted prior
art. The Pine reference does not disclose the claimed
starting (protected phenol) material. Nor does the Pine
reference disclose converting the claimed intermediate
(deprotected phenol) materials in the presence of both base
16
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007