Appeal No. 1996-2113
Application No. 08/192,220
Claimed formulation differs from Hill, New,
Parker or Kilbourne in that second reactive ingredient
(B) anhydride is not explicitly used.
Used [sic, use] of anhydride would be motivated
since (1) primary references use acids, and the
derivatives such as anhydride would be expected
to be compatible with sulfur and (2) secondary
reference Massie (column 3, top) teaches that acid
anhydride and its acid are normally equivalent when
used for rubber processing.
We agree with the examiner that the primary references
(Hill, New, Parker and Kilbourne) fail to disclose or suggest
the second reactive ingredient (an acid anhydride) required by
the claim 1 on appeal. However, we disagree with the
examiner’s interpretation of the claim and these primary
references. Hill, New and Kilbourne do “use acids” as found
by the examiner but fail to disclose or suggest a reaction
product produced by combining the first reactive ingredient
(dihydroquinolines ) with “a second reactive ingredient” which2
is an acid anhydride as required by claim 1 on appeal. The
only acid disclosed or suggested by Hill, New and Kilbourne is
stearic acid, which is a conventional or commonly used
2It is well known that the reaction of an aliphatic ketone
with a primary aromatic amine, as recited in claim 1 on appeal
for the “first reactive ingredient,” produces
dihydroquinolines. See the specification, page 1, ll. 26-30;
page 6, ll. 28-31; Hill, col. 1, ll. 63-67.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007