Ex parte GUPTA et al. - Page 6


                     Appeal No. 1996-0191                                                                                                                                              
                     Application 08/001,697                                                                                                                                            

                     etherified melamine derivatives can be used to cure hydroxyl-functional acrylic and polyester powder                                                              
                     coating resins, none of which is “melamine” per se as disclosed in Kajiura or contains a pyrrolidonyl                                                             
                     moiety as does tris-pyrrolidonyl triazine which is taught in this reference.  Furthermore, contrary to the                                                        
                     examiner’s allegation (answer, page 6), we find that Macholdt would not have suggested to one of                                                                  
                     ordinary skill in this art to use a melamine derivative to cure epoxy resins, whether in powder                                                                   
                     compositions as in this reference or as “all-purpose resins” as in Kajiura (page 8), and we agree with                                                            
                     appellants that Macholdt “does not ‘establish’ the equivalency between the ‘phenol [sic, phenolic]                                                                
                     resin’ of [Kajiura] and the hydroxyfunctional resins of the five other primary references” (brief, page                                                           
                     10).  Thus, at best, the use of crosslinking agents containing a triazine ring in the powder compositions                                                         
                     as disclosed by the combined teachings of Iwasawa, Wooten and Macholdt would have suggested to                                                                    
                     one of ordinary skill in this art “to try” other triazine ring containing crosslinking agents, including the                                                      
                     tris-pyrrolidonyl triazine of Kajiura, which is “not the standard under § 103.”  In re O’Farrell, 853                                                             
                     F.2d 894, 903-04, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“In [other cases], what was ‘obvious to                                                                   
                     try’ was to explore a . . . general approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation                                                               
                     where the prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the claimed invention or how                                                          
                     to achieve it. [Citations omitted.]”).                                                                                                                            
                                Accordingly, it is manifest that the only direction to appellants’ claimed invention as a whole on                                                     
                     the record before us is supplied by appellants’ own specification.  In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20                                                            
                     USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991), citing In re Dow Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5                                                                           
                     USPQ2d 1529, 1531(Fed. Cir. 1988)(“Both the suggestion and the reasonable expectation of success                                                                  
                     must be founded in the prior art, not in the applicant’s disclosure.”).                                                                                           











                                                                                        - 6 -                                                                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007