Appeal No. 95-2153
Application No. 08/171,007
As expressly recited in claims 1 through 13, appellants'
process is carried out "under pH conditions of between 1.0 and
2.5." In our judgment, for the reasons already set forth, the
cited prior art is insufficient to support a conclusion of
obviousness of claims containing that limitation.
Furthermore, as a matter of claim interpretation, we construe
product claims 14 and 15 as defining an acidic aqueous
solution which necessarily includes the characteristics
recited in independent claims 1 and 7. That is, we construe
product claims 14 and 15 as defining an acidic aqueous
solution of melamine-aldehyde polymer containing free aldehyde
levels below 0.1% by weight, produced by a method as claimed
in claims 1 and 7 respectively, and having a pH of between 1.0
and 2.5. Again, the cited prior art is insufficient to
support a conclusion of obviousness of claims containing that
pH limitation.
One further point warrants attention. In the Examiner's
Answer, page 7, last paragraph, the examiner states as
follows:
Hendrix clearly teaches in column 1, lines 54-57
that discoloration in the prior art products is due
to the level of formaldehyde released during
storage.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007