Appeal 2006-2329
Application 10/211,381
Appellants argue that the reaction catalyst of Ide requires the presence of a
primary or secondary amines and may further comprise (as a co-catalyst)
tertiary amines, carbonates, hydroxides and oxides of alkali metals or alkali
earth metals (Br. 7).
Upon consideration of the respective positions of the Examiner and
the Appellants, we agree with the Appellants. The portion of the Ide
reference cited by the Examiner does not indicate that the primary or
secondary amine can be excluded as the reaction catalyst. Rather, Ide
discloses that the catalyst comprises primary or secondary amines and may
include tertiary amines, carbonates, hydroxides and oxides of alkali metals
or alkali earth metals as a co-catalyst.
The citation to Example 4 of Ide also is not supportive of the
Examiner's position. Example 4 is directed to the embodiment which
involves composite carbonfuran resin compounds. Ide discloses that the
carbonfuran resin compound is formed by the reaction of a furan resin with
or without formalin in the presence of carbon powder and a suitable catalyst
such as an acid (Ide 3, 43-45). Ide also discloses that carbonfuran resin
cannot be formed into granules the same as the phenol resin (Ide 3, ll. 45-
47). Thus, to the extent that Example 4 does not contain a reaction catalyst
that comprises a primary or secondary amine, this disclosure is not pertinent
to forming the carbon-phenol resin molding compound embodiments.
Consequently, we determine that the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case of anticipation.
In the discussion of the rejection under § 103, the Examiner relies on
the same embodiments which have been addressed in the discussion of the
§ 102 rejection. The Examiner has also not provided evidence to establish
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007