Appeal No. 2002-2283
Application No. 08/882,513
teaches the process of making haloamines by reacting
a dihaloalkane with an amine. It would be expected to
prepare haloamines by reacting any amine or mixtures
of amine with dihaloalkane or dihaloalkene or their
mixtures.
Therefore, the examiner reasons that unexpected resulted must be
shown to establish the patentability of the claimed subject matter
(EA 8):
It was requested by the Examiner for a side by side
comparison because it would be expected similar kind of
activity among since F, Cl and Br belong to the same
group (VII) in periodic classification of elements they
share similar properties, however, one is more reactive
than the other i.e. F is not a good leaving group than
Br or Cl but is not completely inactive therefore a
comparison of the process would be more appropriate.
The examiner appears to argue that a fluoride is a “displaceable”
halide” (EA 8)(examiner’s emphasis):
Note, that the instant invention is claiming halo
alkane [sic] which includes fluorine as taught by the
prior art.
The examiner errs as a matter of law and as a matter of fact.
First, the examiner’s interpretation of the metes and bounds of
the claimed subject matter is erroneous. We have held that the
process claimed by appellants requires reacting one or more
amines with a I,a -dihaloalkane or I,a -dihaloalkene having two
displaceable halides or a mixture thereof. As a matter of law, we
have interpreted the phrase “displaceable halides” to exclude
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007