Appeal 2006-2185
Application 10/248,892
Specifically, we note: (1) Taylor incorporates by reference the disclosure of
Hawkins ‘005 and teaches that the triazone formation preferably occurs in
aqueous solutions (Taylor at col. 3, ll. 48-57); (2) Taylor assesses the skill in
the art as being at least adequate for selecting any suitable form of the
triazone forming reactants (Taylor at col. 4, ll. 29-35); (3) Taylor, via the
incorporated by reference Hawkins ‘005, discloses or suggests that the
selection of a solid form of urea reactant is an available option (Hawkins
‘005 at col. 6, ll. 61-64); (4) Appellants acknowledge that urea is soluble in
water (Specification 2, ll. 6-7); (5) Taylor teaches heating a solution of
charged reactants with the reactants held at a temperature below about
70 degrees Centigrade, preferably below about 60 degrees Centigrade during
the charging and prior to the aforementioned heating step (Taylor at col. 4,
ll. 6-13); and (6) Hawkins ‘005 teaches that urea, formaldehyde, and
ammonia can be mixed in an aqueous solution before heating to the reaction
temperature (Hawkins ‘005 at col. 6, ll. 39-64). Thus, one of ordinary skill
in the art would have understood from the applied references, including
Hawkins and Taylor, that a solid form of urea could be employed and
dissolved during a mixing step at a lower temperature before the heating to
the reaction temperature takes place.
Finally, the suggestion in the Request that Appellants have stated that
the Example 1 results presented in the Specification are unexpected and that
those unexpected results have been improperly disregarded in the Decision
that was reached is untenable. Appellants, in their Briefs, did not point to
any location in the Specification where the applicants stated that
Example 1 demonstrated unexpected results, nor did our review of the
Specification so find (Decision 7). It is well settled that the question as to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013