Appeal No. 2007-3827
Application 08/713,905
decomposition products while the expected diisocyanates only
occur with poor yield.
Siefken 87; translation 87; Stutz Declaration ¶ 2.
Dr. Stutz further testifies “I would not have expected to be able [sic]
produce an ether (poly)isocyanate under the conditions required for gas
phase phosgenation of the corresponding (poly)amine in view of this
recognized cleavage problem and the teachings in the art at the time the
present invention was made” (Stutz Declaration ¶ 3). Dr, Stutz further
testifies that the disclosure of ether containing aromatic diamines in Biskup
“would not, alone, lead me to expect that gas phase phosgenation of ether
(poly)amines would produce the desired ether (poly)isocyanate in
satisfactory yield” (Stutz Declaration ¶ 5). Dr. Stutz further testifies no
teachings in Bischof and Joulak “would lead me to believe that ether
(poly)amines could be effectively phosgenated in the gas phase by the
disclosed methods” (Stutz Declaration ¶ 4).
Dr. Stutz further testifies “I would not have combined the teachings
of” Lehmann, Joulak, Biskup, and Bischof “in the manner suggested” by the
Examiner “at the time the present invention was made” and “I would not
have expected to be able to produce ether (poly)isocyanates with low
hydrolyzable chlorine contents in good yield by a gas phase phosgenation
process at the time the claimed invention was made” (Stutz Declaration ¶ 6).
We find that the monoether monoamine compound “methoxy
propylamine,” H2N(CH2)3OCH3, and the diether diamine compound
“NH2·(CH2)3·O·CH2CH3·O·(CH2)3·NH2” in the quoted passages in the Stutz
Declaration do not fall within the diether diamine compounds encompassed
by Lehmann’s structural formula “H2N(CH2)3OCH2-C(R1)(R2)-
18
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013