Appeal No. 1995-1539
Application No. 07/950,388
and the claimed reagent to form the claimed substituted 4-
hydroxystyrene. The admitted prior art relied upon by the
examiner does not remedy any of the above deficiencies since
it is relied on to show only a known utility of substituted
styrene monomers. The examiner also has not supplied
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the claimed starting
and intermediate materials, which are structurally different
from those described in the Pine reference, would have behaved
in the same or similar manner in the presence of a base and a
reagent as those in the Pine reference. Under this
circumstance, we do not believe that the prior art relied upon
by the examiner renders the claimed subject matter prima facie
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we
reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4 and 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined disclosures of Pine
and the admitted prior art.
In summary:
(1) The § 112 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 is not
sustained;
(2) The § 102 rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4 over Nader is
sustained;
17
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007