Appeal No. 1996-4115
Application No. 08/183,273
Devore recognizes that polyamide-epichlorohydrin resins
emit harmful chlorinated compounds into the water system of
pulp and paper mills. See column 1, lines 41-44. However, we
find that Devore solves the problem by using an
epichlorohydrin/amine equivalent of about 0.6 to about 0.8,
i.e., a deficiency of epichlorohydrin. Hence the reaction
continues until all the epichlorohydrin has reacted. See
column 2, lines 60-64 and column 4, lines 50-57. Accordingly,
Devore recognizes that excess epichlorohydrin is undesirable,
but suggests its removal by decreasing the ratio of mole
equivalents present.
In viewing the teachings of the references as a whole,
we conclude that the examiner has not explained why it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
removed epichlorohydrin from a polyamide-epichlorohydrin
resin, when no such suggestion is found in the prior art.
The examiner must show reasons that the skilled artisan
confronted with the same problems as the inventor and with no
knowledge of the claimed invention, would select the elements
from the cited prior art references for combination in the
manner claimed. We determine that there is no reason,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007