Appeal 2007-0650
Application 10/808,264
formula (28) compound include carbonyl groups, those are not
excluded by the claim.
With respect to the issue of whether the Examiner has shown
that Matzner suggests a process of preparing the compounds of the
claims, we determine that such a suggestion is present with regard to
claim 22 (e.g., Matzner ‘758, col. 18, ll. 1-13; col. 23, ll. 53-55), but
the Examiner’s findings fall short with regard to the aromatic ether
oligomer of claim 26.
The Examiner points out that Matzner describes an aromatic
ether oligomer formula starting at column 5, line 20 that encompasses
the oligomers of claim 26. The Examiner further finds that Matzner
discloses the process of preparing “said polyaromatic ether” citing
various portions of the references directed to the preparation of the
block copolymer (Answer 4). The Examiner has not cited any portion
of the reference directed to making the compounds of column 5, line
20. The Examiner, therefore, has not presented sufficient evidence
that Matzner suggests a process of reacting a dihydroxyaromatic with
a dihaloaromatic in the presence of a copper compound and a base to
prepare the oligomer in accordance with claim 26.
With respect to claims 23 and 27, Appellants point out that
these claims limit the copper compound to CuI or CuBr, compounds
not disclosed in the Matzner references (Br. 5). We consider the
Appellants’ contention with respect to claim 23 only as claim 27 is
dependent on claim 26, and, therefore, the rejection of claim 27 fails
for the reasons given with respect to claim 26.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013