Appeal No. 1996-0191
Application 08/001,697
moiety to form a “thermosetting resin with excellent heat resistance” as well as function via the ring
opening reaction as a “hardener” or curing agent “for all-purpose resins such as epoxy resins and
phenolic resins” (pages 7-8). We cannot agree with the examiner that this disclosure of Kajiura when7
coupled with the disclosure at page 3 with respect to “melamine” would have reasonably suggested to
one of ordinary skill in this art that resins hardened with melamine per se would “exhibit superior heat
resistance” over resins hardened with melamine resins (answer, pages 6 and 8; see also brief, page
11).
We also cannot agree with appellants that Akkapeddi would not have reasonably suggested to
one of ordinary skill in this art that tris-pyrrolidonyl triazine has crosslinking capability and that only “a
linear block copolymer” would be obtained (brief, page 10). Indeed, Akkapeddi discloses that the
preparation of polyether prepolymers with “2-dimethyl-amino-4,6-bis(á-pyrrolidonyl)-1,3,5-triazine
(BpT)” results in “end capped product with statistical distribution of chain extended by-products”
(pages 314 and 315). We find that one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably inferred from
this disclosure that chain extension would occur even where the prepolymers are end-capped, and
further that where “2,4,6-tris- (á-pyrrolidonyl)-1,3,5-triazine (TpT)” is employed, at least
some of the chain extension product would reasonable involve all three pyrrolidonyl moieties, thus
resulting in a branched prepolymer which is reactive with caprolactam in a ring opening reaction (pages
315 and 318-319).
Accordingly, we find that the combined teachings of Kajiura and Akkapeddi would have
reasonably suggested to one of ordinary skill in this art that tris-pyrrolidonyl triazine can be used as a
cross linking or hardening agent for epoxy and phenolic resins as well as in reactions with ether and
amido containing prepolymers and compounds. The examiner relies on these teaching along with the
7In evaluating the teachings of the applied references, we must, of course, consider the specific
teachings thereof and the inferences one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably been
expected to draw therefrom. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782-83
(Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). In
evaluating the relevance of the various teachings of these references, we must presume skill on the part
of those of ordinary skill in this art. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed.
Cir. 1985).
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007