Appeal No. 1999-1153
Application 08/324,549
and (B)” (answer, page 5). The examiner argues that the5
appellant’s (Si, Ge or Sn substituted amino)-1,3,5-triazines
and Gizycki’s amino-s-triazines which do not have an Si, Ge or
Sn substituted amino group are analogous in that they are both
triazines, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to use the appellant’s triazines in
Gizycki’s process because such a person would have expected
analogous triazines to react similarly (answer, pages 5-6).
Although the appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in
the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success
in making this substitution (brief, page 6), the examiner
provides no evidence in support of his argument. Instead, he
merely relies upon a per se rule of obviousness. As discussed
above regarding the rejection of claim 1, such reliance upon a
per se rule is
improper. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection over Gizycki
5 Actually, in reactions (A) and (B) Gizycki reacts
amino-s-triazines with oxalyl chloride. Gizycki teaches that
phosgenation of amines fails when applied to amino-s-triazines
(col. 1, lines 57-62).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007