Appeal No. 2007-3827
Application 08/713,905
CH2O(CH2)3NH2” (Lehman col. 1, ll. 42-54). We further find that Dr. Stutz
testimony does not include the “test conditions” referred to in the passage
quoted from page 83 of Siefken.
We determine the combined teachings of Lehmann, Joulak, Biskup,
and Bischof, the scope of which we determined above, provide convincing
evidence supporting the Examiner’s case that the claimed invention
encompassed by claim 1, as we interpreted this claim above, would have
been prima facie obviousness of to one of ordinary skill in the organic
chemistry arts familiar with the synthesis of isocyanates by phosgenation of
the corresponding amines.
The thrust of the ground of rejection is that prima facie, one of
ordinary skill in this art would have been motivated to prepare ether
diisocyanates from the ether diamines encompassed by Lehmann’s structural
formula by the continuous process of vapor phase phosgenation following
the methods of any of Joulak, Biskup, and Bischof in the reasonable
expectation that Lehmann’s ether diamines will be converted into the
corresponding ether diisocyanates in good yield. We are of the opinion that
this person would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the
ether diamines encompassed by Lehmann’s structural formula are taught to
undergo little, if any, cleavage contrary to the knowledge in the prior art;
Joulak, Biskup, and Bischof each explain that their processes overcome
problems with conversion in the vapor phase experienced in such
phosgenation methods known in the prior art; and the phosgenation methods
used by Lehmann, which can be continuous, can be conducted at the same
and similar temperature and pressure conditions using the same or similar
19
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013