Appeal No. 1999-1153
Application 08/324,549
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejections. We need to
address only the independent claims, i.e., claims 1 and 21, to
which, respectively, the first and second rejections are
applied.
Rejection of claim 1
The examiner points out that Phillion (page 1611, scheme
1, conversion of 6 to 7), Rajeswari (page 5100, conversion of
1 to 3), CA ‘979 (reaction 5), and CA ‘801 (reaction 5)
disclose reactions of silylamine compounds with acid halides
(answer, pages 4-5). The examiner argues that the only
difference between the appellant’s claimed process and the
processes in the references is that they use different
silylamine starting materials (answer, page 5). The examiner
argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to use the appellant’s (Si-substituted amino)-1,3,5-
triazines as the starting material in the processes of the
references because they were known compounds and, because they
are analogous to the starting materials in the references in
appellant should correct these errors.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007