Appeal 2007-0650
Application 10/808,264
Matzner US 4,968,758 Nov. 6, 1990
Matzner US 5,084,530 Jan. 28, 1992
Appellants rely on the following evidence in rebuttal:
Williams et al., “Solvent assisted Ullmann Ether Synthesis. Reaction
of Dihydric Phenols” J. Org. Chem., 32, 2501 (1967) cited in Keller
reference.
Hammann et al., “Synthesis of Seven New Polyphenyl Ethers” J.
Chem. and Eng. Data, 15(2), 352 (1970), cited in Keller reference.
Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 of Teddy M. Keller.
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Keller; and
2. Claims 22, 23, 26, 27, 56, and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Matzner (4,968,758 or 5,084,530).
II. DISCUSSION
A. Anticipation by Keller
In rejecting claims 1 and 2 as anticipated by Keller, the
Examiner finds that the Keller reference describes resins with –(Oφ)x–
repeating units (x=1-10; φ=phenyl group) that are polyaromatic ethers
within the scope of claims 1 and 2 when x = 7, 8, 9, or 10 (Answer 3).
Appellants acknowledge that the Keller structures are within the scope
of the claims when x = 7, 8, 9, or 10 (Br. 3-4). Appellants contend,
however, that Keller “is not enabling for all disclosed values of x,
including 7, 8, 9, and 10” (Br. 3). Specifically, Appellants contend
that Keller fails to enable the synthesis of these polyaromatic ethers
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013