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
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007