Appeal 2006-2160
Application 09/896,439
B. The Rejections over the APA, Binning, Lambdin and Hirsch
The Examiner applies the APA, Binning, and Lambdin as discussed
above, further finding that these references do not specifically disclose the
poly(m-phenyleneisophthalamide)[NOMEX] recited in the claims on appeal
(Answer 4). However, the Examiner finds that Binning discloses a
polyaramid where the phenylene cannot be ortho-, thus leaving only choices
of meta- or para- substitution (Answer 5). The Examiner further cites Hirsch
as evidence that NOMEX is useful as a polyaramid starting material in a
carbonization process to form ablative composites (id.). From these
findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention to use NOMEX
as the polyaramid in the process of Binning (id.). We agree.
Appellant argues that the cited references do not provide a motivation
to combine to produce the claimed invention (Br. 11-12). Appellant argues
that the products of Hirsch include semicarbonized aromatic polyamides and
these products are distinguished from the products of a carbonizing process
(Br. 12). Appellant also argues that Binning does not teach or suggest that
the aromatic polyamide is a poly(meta-arylamid) merely by using
phenylenes which are not ortho- (Br. 13).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. As correctly found by the
Examiner (Answer, sentence bridging 4-5), Binning only discloses two
possible phenylene substitutions, i.e., meta- and para. Disclosure of such a
small genus is tantamount of a description of each species. See In re
Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 315-17, 197 USPQ 5, 9 (CCPA 1978); In re
Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681-82, 133 USPQ 275, 279-80 (CCPA 1962).
Additionally, we note that Binning exemplifies an aromatic polyamide
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007