Appeal No. 1999-1153
Application 08/324,549
that they are silylamines, they would have been expected by
one of ordinary skill in the art to react similarly to the
starting materials in the references (answer, pages 5 and 8).3
Although the appellant has challenged the examiner’s
argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
expected (Si substituted amino)-1,3,5-triazines to react
similarly to other silylamines (brief, page 5), the examiner
has provided no support for this argument. The examiner has
provided mere speculation, and such speculation is not a
sufficient basis for a prima facie case of obviousness. See
In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA
1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968); In re Sporck, 301
F.2d 686, 690, 133 USPQ 360, 364 (CCPA 1962).
As pointed out by the appellant (brief, page 4), the
3 The examiner actually has not established that the
appellant’s (Si substituted amino)-1,3,5-triazines were known
compounds. The examiner argues that “the starting material
triazino [sic, triamino] 1,3,5-triazine (Melamine) is also not
novel or unobvious and is well known to a person of ordinary
skill” (answer, page 8). Melamine, however, does not fall
within the scope of the formula in the appellant’s claim 1
which requires an Si, Ge or Sn substituted amino group. The
appellant, however, does not argue that the (Si, Ge or Sn
substituted amino)-1,3,5-triazines were unknown at the time of
his invention.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007