Appeal No. 1997-3045
Application 08/286,835
The examiner argues that the applied references disclose
reacting amines with carbon dioxide in the presence of a base,
that the claims differ from the references only in that a
different amine is used as the starting material, and that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have expected appellants’
amines and those in the references to react similarly (answer,
page 3). This argument is not well taken because, although
appellants have challenged the argument (brief, page 4), the
examiner has provided no supporting evidence which establishes
that the applied references, separately or combined, would
have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art that
appellants’ amino-triazine and the primary and secondary
amines of the references react similarly.
Appellants argue, in reliance upon In re Brouwer, 77 F.3d
422, 425, 37 USPQ2d 1663, 1666 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and In re
Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1570, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1131 (Fed. Cir.
1995), that the examiner improperly has applied a per se rule
of obviousness (brief, pages 3-4). The examiner argues that
Brouwer and Ochiai are not on point because “neither the
starting material, amino-1,3,5-triazine, diamino-1,3,5-
-4-4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007