Page 7
Accordingly, the rejection of the examiner is reversed.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103-Claims 22-27 and 35-41
As with the previous embodiment, the examiner relies upon seven references
alone or in combination to reject the claimed subject matter and establish a prima
facie case of anticipation or in the alternative obviousness. It is the examiner’s
position that the “[r]eferences disclose condensates derived from phenols and
aldehyde(s) and method of making condensates.” See Answer, page 5. However, the
process of the claimed subject matter is directed to the formation of a modified
phenolic resin, adding the modified phenolic resin to an acid causing the resin to be
deposited and thereafter dissolving the acid in an organic solvent or an aqueous alkali
solution. Where modified phenolic resins are prepared in the art of record, they
customarily remain in alkali, not acid.
The only exception occurs in Dorsch, column 7, lines 3-26 wherein a base
catalyzed phenolic condensate is recovered by dissolution in dilute alkali, precipitated
with HCl, filtered, dried and thereafter dissolved in an aqueous alkali solution in
accordance with the claimed subject matter. However, notwithstanding the disclosure
therein, the phenolic condensate is neither “modified” nor diluted with water as
required by the claimed subject
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007