Appeal 2007-2521
Reexamination 90/007,130
1 acid than the product obtained by following Yasuda’s example. Santhaman
2 Declaration, p. 2-3, ¶ 6; Mardis Declaration, p. 2, ¶ 7. Both Inventors testify
3 that it is their conclusion that the chemistry of the reaction in Yasuda is
4 different than the chemistry involved in their technique. Santhaman
5 Declaration, p.3, ¶ 9; Mardis Declaration, p. 4, ¶ 11. Based upon the
6 declarations, Patentees argue that
7 the only variable that resulted in any difference in the
8 amounts of unreacted acid or amine was the absence or
9 presence of xylene as a solvent in the reaction. As such,
10 the presence or absence of xylene as a solvent produces a
11 reaction product that is different depending on whether
12 xylene is used or not.
13 Appeal Brief, p. 8-9.
14 Patentee’s arguments and evidence are not persuasive of error in the
15 rejection. While Yasuda’s example includes xylene in the mixture, other
16 portions of Yasuda do not describe the use of xylene. Thus, Yasuda
17 expressly states that the rheological additives are
18 obtained through an amidation reaction at 150-170°C of a
19 mixture of hydrogenated castor oil fatty acid with C6-C12
20 straight chain saturated fatty acid . . . under addition of an
21 equivalent amount of ethylenediamine or 1,4-
22 diaminobutane . . .
23 Yasuda Translation, p. 5, l. 14-18. References must be considered in their
24 entirety and are not limited to the teachings of the specific examples. In re
25 Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 571 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In
26 re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976). Yasuda
27 also teaches preparing rheological additives without using xylene. The
28 declaration evidence does not establish that the products obtained by
29
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013