Ex parte BERECK et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 21, 1998

07504881 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 21, 1998)

Application for patent filed April 5, 1990. 1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not
written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 31
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte ATTILA BERECK, KLAUS FLORY AND MATTHIAS KUMMER
____________
Appeal No. 95-1506
Application No. 07/504,8811
____________
HEARD: October 14, 1998
____________
Before SOFOCLEOUS, GARRIS, and WEIFFENBACH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SOFOCLEOUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 10 to 18. Claim 9 stands
withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. Subsequent to
the final rejection, the examiner entered appellants’ amendments (Paper Nos. 15 and 19),
which substituted claim 19 for claim 10. Thus, claims 11 to 19 are all the claims before us
on this appeal.
The subject matter on appeal is directed to improved processes for preparing
aqueous solutions of N-methylol derivatives of carboxamides, urethanes, ureas and
aminotriazines and/or the N-methylol ethers of carboxamides, urethanes, ureas and
aminotriazines. There are three different aspects of appellant’s claimed invention, each
having in common the utilization of a boron containing catalyst. The first aspect, which is
the subject of claim 11, concerns a process for preparing aqueous solutions of N-methylol
compound of a carboxamide, urethane, urea or aminotriazine comprising reacting said
carboxamide, urethane, urea or aminotriazine with formaldehyde using a catalyst selected
from the group consisting of boron trifluoride, a boron trifluoride addition compound,
tetrafluoroboric acid, and a salt of tetrafluoroboric acid. The second aspect, which is the
subject of claims 12 to 18, concerns a process for preparing aqueous solutions of N-
methylol ether of a carboxamide, urethane, urea or aminotriazine comprising reacting the
corresponding N-methylol compound with an alcohol in the presence of a catalyst selected
from the group consisting of boron trifluoride, a boron trifluoride addition compound and
tetrafluoroboric acid. The third aspect, which is the subject of claim 19, concerns a
process for preparing an aqueous solution of an N-methylol ether of a carboxamide,
urethane, urea or aminotriazine comprising reacting said carboxamide, urethane, urea or
aminotriazine with formaldehyde and an alcohol in an aqueous solution using a catalyst
selected from the group consisting of boron trifluoride, a boron trifluoride addition
compound, tetrafluoroboric acid and a salt of tetrafluoroboric acid. The novelty of the three
aspects of appellants’ processes resides in the use of the aforementioned catalyst.
In the brief, appellants have argued the claims separately as grouped above. Claim
11 is sufficiently representative of the claims on appeal and reads as follows:
Appeal No. 95-1506
Application No. 07/504,881
-3-
Claim 11
A process for preparing an aqueous solution of an N-methylol compound
of a carboxamide, urethane, urea or aminotriazine that is suitable for finishing a
cellulose-containing textile material comprising reacting said carboxamide,
urethane, urea or amiotriazine with formaldehyde in an aqueous solution, further
comprising adding a member selected from the group consisting of boron trifluoride, a
boron trifluoride addition compound, tetrafluoroboric acid, and a salt of tetrafluoroboric
acid to the aqueous solution during said reaction.
The reference relied upon by the Examiner is:
Yamamoto et al (Yamamoto) 3,840,339 Oct. 8 1974
Claims 11 to 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto.
After having reviewed the arguments in both appellants’ brief and the Examiner’s
Answers, we find that we cannot sustain these rejections for the reasons set forth in
appellants' brief with which reasons we fully agree and adopt as our own.
Appeal No. 95-1506
Application No. 07/504,881
-4-
No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
REVERSED
MICHAEL SOFOCLEOUS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
BRADLEY R. GARRIS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
CAMERON WEIFFENBACH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MS/sld
OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLEND & MAIER
Crystal Square Five, Ste. 400
1755 South Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, VA 22202