Appeal No. 2002-2217
Application 09/549,016
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Cox.
OPINION
We affirm the aforementioned rejection.
The appellants state that the claims stand or fall together
(brief, page 3). We therefore limit our discussion to one claim,
i.e., claim 1, which is the sole independent claim. See In re
Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed.
Cir. 1995); 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
Cox discloses a resin obtained by reacting an alkyl-
substituted aniline (formula 1 in the appellants’ claim 1) with
formaldehyde (component A in the appellants’ claim 1) and phenol,
and reacting this product with a vicinal epoxide, the preferred
vicinal epoxide being an alkylene oxide (component B in the
appellants’ claim 1) such as ethylene oxide, 1,2-epoxypropane,
and the epoxybutanes (col. 2, lines 36-58; col. 3, lines 58-60
and 65-67; col. 19, lines 39-55). The formaldehyde and alkylene
oxide react with the amino group of the alkyl-substituted aniline
(col. 2, lines 38-41; col. 5, lines 35-43). “The polyols can
have oxyalkylene chains which average from about 1.0, and lower,
to about 30, and higher, oxyalkylene units per reactive hydrogen
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007