Appeal No. 96-1122
Application 08/087,134
ordinary skill in the art to “diphenylene”. See In re
Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 316, 197 USPQ 5, 9 (CCPA 1978); In re
Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681, 133 USPQ 275, 279-80 (CCPA 1962).
Consequently, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(e).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Ueda in view of Matsunaga
Matsunaga discloses fluorescent brighteners having a
generic formula, and discloses species of the formula which
differ from the compound in appellants’ claim 2 only in that
one of the end constituents of each of Matsunaga’s vinyl
radicals is hydrogen rather than one of the groups recited in
appellants’ claim 2 (abstract; cols. 15 and 16, formulas 59,
61 and 62). Matsunaga states that the fluorescent brighteners
“can be used for fibers, fabrics, textiles, film, sheet,
shaped articles, paint, ink etc.,” (col. 5, lines 45-48) made
of natural organic materials, semi-synthetic materials, and
synthetic organic materials (col. 5, lines 30-41).
The examiner’s statement of the rejection is as follows
(answer, pages 3-4):
Ueda does not explicitly teach the arylene as
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007