Appeal No. 1997-3045
Application 08/286,835
triazine or melamine are new or the product 2,4,6-carbamate-
1,3,5-triazine are novel” (answer, page 5). This argument
does not have a sound factual basis because the product made
by appellants’ claimed process is not a carbamate. The
product is a compound which contains an aminocarboxyl group or
the salt thereof (specification, page 4,
lines 30-32). A carbamate functional compound can be formed
in a subsequent step by reacting the product of appellants’
claimed process with a hydrocarbylating agent (specification,
page 7, lines 15-19). The examiner has provided no evidence
that appellants’ carboxylated amino-1,3,5-triazine was known
in the art.
Moreover, regardless of whether appellants’ starting
material and product were known, the examiner’s argument that
“[o]nce the examiner has cited prior art showing a general
reaction to be old, the burden is on applicant to present
evidence for believing that triazine ring would take part in
or affect the carbonylation of amino group disclosed in the
references” is based upon a per se rule. As stated by the
court in Ochiai, 71 F.3d at 1572, 37 USPQ2d at 1133:
-5-5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007