Appeal No. 2002-2283 Application No. 08/882,513 defined by the present claims on appeal, i.e., wherein halides are limited to “displaceable halides” (independent Claims 1, 20 and 32). Therefore, on this record, we find that the subject matter now claimed is described in the specification as required under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Consistent therewith, we hold that the phrase “displaceable halides” in applicant’s claims excludes fluoride. In addition, the examiner indicated that the terms “I,a-dihaloalkane” and ”I,a-dihaloalkene” do not encompass 1,2-dihaloethanes and 1,2-dihaloethenes. The examiner acknowledged that “[t]he instant claims differ from the reference in claiming one starting material different by one carbon from Hayase et al. (EA 5). The Examiner’s Answer states (EA 5)(emphasis added): Hayase et al. discloses preparation of N-(Flouorethyl) aniline [sic] and heterocyclic analogues by the same process. These compounds are useful as insecticides, acaricide, and microbicide. A mixture of PhNH2 and bromo-flouroethane [sic] (BrCH2CH2F) was heated at 60O for 19 hours to give N-(Flouroethyl) aniline [sic]. Appellants’ claims do not stand rejected over JP63-227552 (1988). Therefore, while in a well-founded rejection the disclosure and teachings of Japanese Kokai Patent Application 63-227552 would be before us in all but the most extraordinary cases, they are not here. CA 111:153338 does not appear before us 11Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007