Appeal No. 2006-1161
Application No. 10/322,254
ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966).
See also Answer at 3. Thus, Graham instructs us to consider these three factors prior to
turning to the ultimate legal conclusion.
The Scope and Content of the Prior Art
The primary reference relied upon by the Examiner is Kimoto. Kimoto is directed
to a fluorinated copolymer “useful as a starting material for production of a cation
exchange membrane or a fluorinated cation exchange resin . . . and also to a process for
preparing the same.” Col. 1, lines 10-15. The copolymer is prepared by polymerizing a
fluorinated olefin with a sulfur-containing fluorinated vinylether. In turn, the fluorinated
vinylether can be prepared from a fluorinated acid fluoride. See, e.g., col. 11, line 67-
col. 12, line 29. Thus, one object of this invention “is to provide a novel fluorinated acid
fluoride represented by the formula:
FSO2( CF2)n+1 (OC(CF3)FCF2)pOC(CF3)FCOF [A]
wherein n is an integer of 2 to 4, and p is an integer of 0 to 50.”
Col. 10, lines 46-54. The fluorinated acid fluoride represented by formula A overlaps
with formula I in claim 1 of the ‘254 application. Thus, there is no question formula A
includes the monoaddition product of the presently claimed process when p is 0.
The Kimoto reference further teaches that the
applicable molar ratio of hexapropylene oxide to FSO2( CF2)nCOF is
from about 1/20 to about 100/1. When the compound [A] has a low p
value, for example, when p is 0 or 1, the relative proportion of
FSO2(CF2)nCOF is increased, and lower pressure and higher
temperature are preferred to be selected. . . .
. . . .
[A] cation exchange membrane prepared from a copolymer of
said fluorinated vinyl ether compound and tetrafluorethylene may
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007