Appeal No. 2002-2283
Application No. 08/882,513
N-(2-fluoroethyl-) substituent it describes show insecticidal
and/or microbiocidal activity.
(3) Hayase does not teach that N-aryl- or N-heterocyclic-
amines with N-(2-haloethyl-) substituents other than the
N-(2-fluoroethyl-) substituent it describes show insecticidal
and/or microbiocidal activity.
(4) Hayase gives a single example for preparing insecticidal
and/or microbiocidal –(2-fluoroethyl-), N-aryl- or N-heterocyclic-
amines whereby “[a] mixt. of PhNH2 and BrCH2CH2F was heated at
60.degree. for 19 h to give N-(2-fluoroethyl)aniline”.
(5) Hayase teaches the reaction of an I,a-dihaloalkyl
compound having a single displaceable halide (Br) with an amine.
The presence of fluorine in the product taught by Hayase strongly
suggests that the remaining halide, i.e., the fluoride, is not
“displaceable” within the meaning of appellants’ Claim 1.
(6) Regarding the rejection,2 the examiner argues(EA 5):
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the
art to prepare additional haloamines by reacting any
I-a-dihaloalkane or I,a-dihaloalkene, because reference
2 While we believe we have reconstructed the examiner’s
logic, the Examiner’s Answer is not written in standard English.
While our concern for logic is more important than our concern
for grammar and style, a few editorial corrections in the
Examiner’s Answer certainly would have enhanced the clarity of
the examiner’s position.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007