Appeal No. 96-3584
Application No. 08/267,877
for the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner's rejections.
We, like appellant, do not agree with the examiner that
May discloses a composition comprising the claimed reaction
product of a difunctional epoxy resin and a compound embraced
by the recited formulae, e.g., resorcinol. May discloses a
reaction product of a phenolic resole resin and a difunctional
epoxy resin, and further teaches that such compositions may
also contain an accelerator, such as resorcinol. May does not
disclose that the resorcinol accelerator reacts with the
difunctional epoxy resin, but the examiner maintains that "the
composition[s] made obvious by May include 1) a bisphenol A
epoxy reacted with resorcinol" (page 9 of Answer). At page 6
of the Final Rejection, the examiner makes the statement that
"[i]n order to function as an accelerator to increase the
speed of reaction of epoxy resins, accelerators must react
with the epoxy as required by the claims." However, appellant
notes at page 8 of the Brief that "the Examiner does not offer
evidence to support this proposition other than his own
statement," and, furthermore, appellant invites attention to
an analogous reaction disclosed in May wherein phenol is used
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007