*1 respect is said ments with what design applica- patent what is shown greater clarity in the Man- tions and for Examining

ual of Patent Procedure. solely myself, I

For rest affirmance comply

on the failure to with 35 U.S.C. say 112. I am unable to whether § design ap- in the same plication patent, in the or an ob- J., Worley, C. dissented. variant, because, the dotted vious due to lines and the clause “dominant feature” patent, I am not sure what attempt I

claimed therein. think the alone, claim the base without tee,

ball and but who would know? Here, perhaps, attempt to claim

the ball and tee in combination descrip- uncertainty There base. Again fea- tion. we a “dominant clause, appears ture” mean- which to be ingless drawings no because the contain

dotted or lines. broken subscribe, moreover, I cannot

Since patenting rejection the double stated board,

by either examiner or the involved not mentioned majority in a kind of obvious-

ness-type patenting rejection, double I

express opinion rejection. no on that

Pennie, Edmonds, Morton, Taylor & Adams, Morton, Brown W. New York City, Washington, Shane, Jr., Charles N. C., (Hal Seagraves, D. E. New York Application of CCPA United States Court of Customs and Patent and Louis H. Bock. June Appeal Franklin W. Appeals. No. 7398. HERRICK counsel) RICH, ents. City, (Jack Joseph Schimmel, Before E. SMITH and counsel), for the Commissioner of Pat- Armore, Washington, WORLEY, Washington, D. ALMOND, Chief appellants. Judge, D. Judges. C., C., Judge. SMITH, single legal emerges A issue twice-argued appeal: whether the sub- ject sought patented matter meaning obvious within of 35 U.S.C. Because we conclude that § subject as a evaluation of that matter according statutory pre- whole to the *2 sustained, moles may reverse cepts we not be 1.0 moles of of from 0.25 to of the board. the decision reacting hydroxide, sodium the mater- appeal to this This returns temperature to ials reflux form at a having after for determination court having polymethylol phenol a mole a to the Patent Of once remanded1 been ratio from 2.3 to 2.52 moles pro remand was for further fice. The per phenol, mole opinion ceedings with our consistent cooling arrest conden- the mixture to orig pointing the nature of the out that sation, acid and water sulfuric rejection, particularly the and ex inal temper- keeping to the mixture and combina cessive number of different °C., separating the con- ature below upon, defeated tions references relied heavy syrup from an densate as a purpose intent and of 35 U.S.C. § washing aqueous portion, the con- and purpose, That which we there made 132. it water free with densate applicants for clear, is insure inorganic material, polymethylol said patent apprised properly of the re phenol being in water but insoluble they jection must meet. soluble in alcohol. a modified remand has resulted in improved polymethylol phen- 2. An Answer, decision examiner’s and a new heavy syrup ol in form of a Appeals,2 the Board of formaldehyde-to-phenol a combined reducing substantially num- effect of mole ratio of from 2.3 to and 2.52 ber of to be considered3 and references degree having a of condensation such thereby simplifying basis for the is water insoluble but soluble rejection the extent inherent least to organic including solvents methan- in that action.4 ol, being inorganic and free of ma- The Invention terial. Appellants’ application5 discloses and resin-forming composition 4. The partially-condensed polymethyl- claims a comprising polymethylol phenol in it, producing ol method for heavy syrup having the form of a lignin composition of it with an alkali formaldehyde- combined process forming

and a for a condensa- to-phenol of from 2.3 to 2.52 which is containing water no free insoluble lignin. 1, and alkali Claims being and free in- representative and read: organic material, lignin and an alkali inorganic poly- which is free of material in producing 1. The for polymethylol phen- methylol phenol comprises admixture with the which ol, being acting phenol said mixture soluble in or- 3.0 with from Herrick, 713, manner which the retained refer- F.2d 1. In re 52 COPA applied. (1965). ences were regret We Office has of Messrs. Federico 2. The board consisted sharpen declined our invitation their Stone, Rosa, Examiners-in-Cliief, and upon focus which on the factual basis Acting Mr. Rosa Examiner-in-Chief. legal conclusion of “obviousness” based. opinion of the board. wrote the spirit thought it We clear that the our remand, opinion and board earlier “greater certainty,” our On reflected desire ' “specula- references treated five of the eleven rather than “cumulative,” upon originally tion,” “rational isolation and deter- relied for a may legal consid- not be need mination of the issues which and stated that present,” Thus, them. not and for ered. we have considered a statement rejection comports “in- with the complete explanation Although a more 132,” purpose tent of 35 rather USO rejection on the for the of the reasons than it. defeats upon would on remand relied references 625,209, helpful 5. Serial No. November provided filed a clarification “Polymethylol Phenol court, 1956 for neither both Phenolic Resins.” elaborated the board examiner nor insoluble, including are use- ganic infusible methanol solvents heating polymethylol phenol in- ful. The sol- to an condensible uble in such solvents which has low infusible resin soluble, compatible absorption high lower alcohols and is dielectric occurring phenolic ma- properties. natural [sic] lignin, quebracho and terials such as like claim is directed to the Claim *3 phenolic constituents of bark. Com- polymethylol phenol; claims 5 and 6 positions polymethylol phenol composition as to the same directed naturally occurring phenolic such 4; and claim 8 is directed to the thermosetting materials are and can forming the condensation molding compounds, be used to make composition product attained with the properties paper laminates with claim 4. equivalent those made with specification, In the words of the phenolic laminating ventional resins. polymethylol phenol of the is: invention * * * * * * by having characterized invention, formaldehyde phenol ratio of from electrically conducting free 2.52, electro- inorganic 2.30 to freedom from lytes, constituents, can be used to form laminates a state condensa- properties range where tion in such dielectric are essential. a narrow Additionally, polar is water have excellent dimen- insoluble but soluble in stability solvents, sional advantageous- and resistance to water. and is ly forming laminating useful The Prior Art varnishes, component as a of thermo- setting phenolic compositions, resin As a result the action on taken curing agent phenolic for other remand, ma- the claims now stand terials, purposes jected and for other where consisting thermosetting yield following: condensates that 1,614,171 Amann et al. 11, Jan. 1927 (Amann) Thompson 2,186,687 et al. 9, Jan. 1940 (Thompson) 2,228,976 Reboulet 14, Jan. 1941 2,620,321 Schrader et al. 2, Dec. (Schrader) 2,673,190 Dietz 23, Mar.

Martin, Chemistry pages “The Phenolic Resins” Wiley Sons, Inc., York, John New production Amann describes of a disclosed. The an ex- reference includes phenol by mixture of alcohols ample the treat- to a reaction directed phenols ment of with a mole ratio of 2.5 moles of presence of an alkali. It states that phenol, to 1 mole of dihydroxy diphenyl methane derivatives precipitated by acid weak while higher compounds or molecular water and res- then concentrated to provide a thin brown oil. inous character are formed if the re- directly by action is not modulated cool- Thompson preparation discloses ing or the like. Use of 1.5 more moles phenol-formaldehyde compositions resin formaldehyde per production to be used in laminated - - 4,4' composi- methylol dihydroxydiphenylmeth- as adhesives. bodies and reacting formal- ane from prepared a mixture of formalde- tions are hyde hydroxide. 2a dehyde more than and sodium It states tetramethyloldihydroxydiphenyl- an to mole hydrox- catalyst formed such as sodium methane is the self-condensa- alkaline then ide, neutralizing trimethylolphenol with an acid salts dehydrating. cooling solution. occurs The reaction with the elimination for- of water and thermo- use discloses Reboulet maldehyde between 2 moles of the trial- “a lignin more plastic with 50% cohol with the reaction favored thermosetting character- binder high phenol-formaldehyde res- istics, such Page such as 2 or 3 97 of Martin thermosetting molded in,” provide a one-stage discusses certain “Resoles” or product. resins, referring specifically a “Water- adhesive is directed to Schrader “Casting Soluble Resin” and a Resin.” *4 mixing together prepared by a “base” Page reports of 127 the reference a “catalytic” “nucleated” resin and a process in which evolution of formalde- “catalytic” prepared resin resin. The hyde, place p-cresol which took when by reacting of formal- to 3.5 moles dialcohol was heated in the of pres- dehyde per mole of ions, sodium ceased when all sodium mixture 1 a ence 0.5 to mole of of from ions were removed. hydroxide and alkali of alkali metal temperature be- carbonate at metal Rejections The 4 10 from to tween and 70° C. for 55° rejected The examiner 1 claim as “ob resin is hours. base described Thomp vious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over cooking prepared reflux “an under al., al., son et Schrader et or Dietz in formalde- of a mixture view of Martin” and claims 2 and 3 “as hyde hydroxide in the metal and alkali obvious under 35 103 over U.S.C. § proportions of for- of 1.4 to 3.0 moles together1 the Martin text considered maldehyde to alkali and 0.5 1.0 mole of with Amann et al Schrader et al.”' and per phenol to hydroxide of the metal rejected He claims 4 6to and 8 as “ob viscosity centi- of about 200 to 500 vious over Reboulet considered with the poises about a resin solids at content Martin text taken in view Schrader per 30 cent.” al, et and Amann et al.” The board preparation of a Dietz discloses principally adopted, own, as its the ex using densation given support aminer’s reasons ranging in molecular ratios rejections, those certain 1 1 1.8 to from about to about brief comments. We will therefore di pres- are reacted in the materials primarily rect our discussion ex hydrox- (sodium ence caustic soda of a rejection, aminer’s statement of re ide) tempera- to a solution cooled ferring to the comments where- board’s ture 35° to 40° of about C. appears helpful such reference to be days. mix- 3 maintained for 2 to understanding position. an of our hydro- ture is then neutralized with Opinion ice chloric acid while cooled with temperature excess maintain a not In Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan- allowing C., of 40° followed City, 1, 684, sas 383 U.S. 86 S.Ct. layers separate mixture into Supreme 545 (1966), L.Ed.2d Court washing layer the resin with water. guidelines observing set broad forth por- requirements text, separate Martin is three § emphasis The Act It of which have cited. cast tions been comprising pages inquiry part, terms of an first into obviousness subject reports 3,3',5,5'-tetra- sought separation pat- matter passage, oft-quoted moles of 2.5 to 3.0 In exited. at conditions stated, 694: one mole under 86 S.Ct. U.S. ->: n * which lead to condensation condition, which § stage same that critical wherein conditions, each three is but one water-insoluble, product becomes a satisfied, lends it- be of which must polymethylol phenol alcohol-soluble inquiries. factual basic self several condensate a mole ratio of 2.3 scope content Under § formaldehyde per to 2.52 moles of determined; are to be art important phenol. prior art and between differences note that the reactants cooled to are to be ascer- issue the claims at 10° C. or lower to arrest condensation during ordinary tained; skill level after the addition acid. Against pertinent resolved. polymethylol phenol condensate background, obviousness manner, in this while extreme- formed ly reactive, subject matter nonobviousness of * * * is still water-insoluble and is determined. can be washed with water to remove legal making inorganic determina material which would make language tion, product poor 103 must the other § dielectric. required considered. We is, course, processes true that the the claimed sub statute to evaluate against disclosed in the references cited light ject as a whole in the matter specifically claim 1 are different from the claim and the differences between prior process, that claimed and from each addition, Supreme art. *5 other, in that disclose different need, in the referred to determin Court proportions reactants, different cata- “guard against ing patentability, to lysts, procedures different reaction citing hindsight,” slipping into use of durations, steps treating or different Equipment Hecket Monroe Auto Co. v. the after condensation. 406, Mfg. Sup. Co., 332 F.2d horn & question The before us is whether turn, (6th 1964). Monroe, in 412 Cir. process the obvious in is view claimed proposition on court’s relies for that opinion this teachings Thomp- one of the 686, Sporek, in In F.2d re son, Dietz, Schrader or taken with the (1962). 689, 49 CCPA 1042-43 teachings has of Martin. examiner Sporek, stated, id. this court pointed aspects of the ref- out various 1045, 301 at 690: F.2d processes correspond erence to * * * Here, nor neither the record appellants’ process. However, he has to the facts which we are able explain why failed use of the the judicial supplies take the fac- notice specific features of claims which the necessary support tual data the lacking primary the reference legal of the conclusion of obviousness processes might suggested be so in the invention at time it was made. the secondary reference as to establish ob- unwilling specu- We are to substitute subject viousness the claimed matter hindsight appraisal lation and of the person ordinary as a whole prior art for such factual data. respect skill in the art. this the jection appears guided by preliminary concepts in to have been With these “hindsight.” Despite observation, analysis mind, the we turn to an n claims. given independent we have full and con- positions sideration to the of the ex- Rejection Claim aminer and the board and to the ref- 1, appellants claim In connection with sup- erences which are now relied .state: port rejection. the Our conclusion aspect rejection distinguishing that the of claim 1 novel and does not proper rejection 1 constitute a process claim under as defined the range reacting of U.S.C. 103. critical the § includes particular outset, implicit in claim substance obtained not At ** application. supplied in the from its 1 that reactants are 2.5 to 3.0 moles by That contention answered the fact phenol.6 per basic One steps making up that combination of Schrader, does meet that references, process the claimed and the novel well as the recited ratio ratio as already references, the reasons However, employed. hydroxide sodium stated, do not demonstrate that dif- arresting teaching of lacks a Schrader ferences between claimed by required art are such the claimed specified employing sub- subject matter as whole would have provides appel- sequent treatment which the time been obvious at the invention product. lants’ was made. discloses references None of the Rejection Claims 2 and 3 arrest cooling mixture adding be followed should As to claims examiner densation keeping mixture and products acid to stated that “are sulfuric Thus, temperature 10° C. below one the Thompson obvious to skilled the art - - - neutral- specifically tetramethylol dihydroxy- discloses 4' cooling and izing diphenylmethane before condensate Martin disclosure of stopping the condensa- disclose him” does not before obviousness is provide point a condensate tion at that having further shown consideration of Mar- in the secondary ratio recited tin with the references to cooling conden- specifically, Dietz teaches Amann and concerning More claim. Schrader. secondary references, hydrochloric to it acid he sate stated: cooling ice, temperature “the while substantially exceed ah, allowed

not upon Amann et relied show de- This reference form- 40° C.” excess about aldehyde great formed as “of scribed relied The reference is also NaOH. Dietz, to us- addition interest.” But prod- solubility on to of such show *6 substantially ing lower mole alcohols, in ace- ucts tone, esters, such solvents as phenol reactants the is etc. reference The suggest em- appellants, does not than comprehensive further relied on its for temperature ploying the much lower possible discussion the reactions present required 10° the than less C. formaldehyde. reference, secondary Mar- process. The upon is relied to show Schrader et al suggestion any tin, likewise lacks products liquid action viscous from the temperature. cooling required to the upon phenol. of excess affirming claim as to In the examiner tetramethyloldihydroxydiphenyl- The 1, the board commented: product of shown methane Martin is not - * * heavy syrup or inbe the form of a ref- mere the fact that The it to the extent be condensed that production the fail to teach erences organic in is soluble water-insoluble but product of no is of a water-insoluble liquids including lim- determining methanol these as the consequence in since claims. itations are the included within process the patentability claims particular, In taken the has not examiner comprising the steps are the product consideration, position is water- that the for features essential interpretation that ble specification the claim is its ex- is occasioned This comment having, number of moles of for first in his Answer aminer hy- language and sodium questioned time, of claim single is in by stating is droxide relation to that “the amount phenol. not plausi- specified.” think We why any They reason not it. state that further or advanced insoluble7 it so. “condensed to a state of to make means it obvious would be organic insolubility but solvent pointed out particular, has not In he solubility.” understanding That secondary anything references in the phrase correct seems to us to be proce- suggests the Martin that which specify not a condition we are provide might be modified dure taught or made ob- satisfied is either speci- product vious the combinations of to so properties, how fied modify much less rejection. upon in the relied products are de- Amann it. The adopting reasons the examiner’s great showing “a or less more scribed as rejecting 3, the board claims 2 fact, degree solubility in water.” observed: Example cited product of Amann’s the by * * * it noted that the record is required the examiner as prior art not indicate that does “readily ratio, be is stated polymethylol phenol are products not “catalytic” or soluble water.” tested under the water-insoluble when is “nucleated” resin of Schrader e., temperature and same conditions i. While described as “water-soluble.” pH, products. claimed solubility does not disclose the Schrader resin with of its “base” characteristics regard significant point on that that water, not does the examiner products disclosed and any any different contend that would be claimed as water-insoluble without in that reference than the being tempera- limitation set out as to spect. Appellants ture. “even state that Also, criticized temperature room phenol [their “degree phrase concentration” substantially in- condensate] recog- being “not claims 2 and 3 as hand, soluble in water.” the other On significance in the or defined nized nothing pointed out record not limitation claims” and deemed reference demonstrate that However, patentable import.” to be “of materials other than water soluble.8 effectively employed phrase rejection will not of claims 2 and 3 sug- specification defined be sustained. gested by in claims examiner for use Rejection Claims to 6 and 8 defining property of 2 and 3 for rejection insoluble claims 4 “water the condensate including adds Reboulet to references cited to solvents but soluble in rejection sustain the Appellants claims state methanol.” rejection just theory language and 3. question would that, “degree” meaningful were in view of Reboulet’s combination *7 if word scribed as the a “Water-Soluble Resin” 7. It that the that is interest statement period may beginning “the reaction “[t]he that board mere fact dehydration produc- shortened and the conducted fail to teach the the references quoted very temperature; otherwise, product,” at a low of a water-insoluble solubility ap- discussing opinion previously water will be lost.” That in in this pears portion displaced pages original in a in deci- was made its part rejected from the relied on the examiner on sion when claim stood * * disclosing tetramethylol-4, 4'-dehy- al., “any *, as Amann et one droxydiphenylmethane Thompson al., *, to ma- al. relates et Schrader et * *, alone, Dietz, terial formed the reaction of 1.25-1.35 or in view each * * * formaldehyde per phe- all moles include Martin.” Those against nol. 2 and We do not find that statement indic- claims references relied ative of claimed con- obviousness 3. appar- densate. The examiner and board ently opinion, had since in the same 8. solicitor refers to a statement made no reference statement. de- Martin’s discussion of a “Resole” properties lignin, it it would disclose as phenolic resins with appellants’ particular condensate as defined be to combine obvious claims, plain claims. It thus that which is latter densate obvious, alkali do new so far obtain a result which is with itself considered concerned; prod- resin-forming com- as the lignin references provide a producing capable that uct resin which position. stated polymethylol the novel “only obtained” adhesive wherein expected results are phenol suggested. with condensate is cross-linked he combination from the lignin. provides alkali record contesting rejection, appellants that such no us evidence which satisfies state: producing it or the is obvious. lignin that alkali Reboulet discloses by itself, can be can or be molded the board is reversed. decision of such with various

mixed materials clay, be Reversed or that it can used wood fiber phenol formal-

as an extended with molding compounds. dehyde resins in ALMOND, J., concurs result. suggestion remotest not the There lignin using with alkali Reboulet WORLEY, Judge (dissenting). Chief poly- polymethylol or condensate Considering any phenol phenolic ma- the state methylol reflected in al- the references cited that will cross-link terial twice-argued states, ap- in this lignin. Office kali Reboulet As peal, lignin it me seems to the examiner and alone alkali can molded concluding ample phenol board had reason for no there is disclosure subject appellants’ extend- matter of than an more patentable. is not with the claims er or that has coaction lignin. alkali particularly I am concerned with the majority manner treats apparent does not that Reboulet substance, cross-linking claims 2 and between 3. those there teach that insoluble, claims recite a lignin phenol and the soluble, designates solvent condensate1 the lat- resin. The reference heavy syrup having r broadly o does not com ter material obviously helpful background un has a combined formalde- will be Some hyde-phenol During appel- scope derstanding 3.0. of claims synthesis trimethylol procedure, Appellants lants’ with excess react (at prepare is said to condense further least compounds intermediate) transitorily form the formula: mono trimethylol meric formula: *8 n=2, trimethylol Where a “dimer” of phenol obtained, having a combined formaldehyde-phenol according appellants’ compound, ratio 2.5. Fur- of That to brief, specification ther condensation of that “dimer” with soluble. and is water formaldehyde-phenol 2,2/-dihydroxydiphenyl- ratio of 2.3 of bined derivative inorganic °C., and free of salts. methane of melts at 132-133 the 2,4'-isomer 117-118°C., of and the observes, majority As the the 4,4'-isomer at 145-146°C. Martin had products to be found those claimed “ob- previously compound melt obtained a one skilled in the vious to ing at 130-132°C. which showed the tetramethylol-4,4'-dihydroxydiphe- the analysis tetramethyloldi correct nyl-methane alone disclosure of Martin” Although hydroxydiphenylmethane. before him considered further with appear proved, it from was never would Amann and Schrader. melting point compound the by may obtained tetramethylol been Martin have discloses, The in Martin reference 2,2'-dihy- derivative of pertinent part: droxydiphenylmethane. in is now established that ad- well phenol alco- dition the mononuclear Tetramethyloldihydroxydiphenylme- tetramethyloldihydroxydiphenyl- hols by thane is formed self-condensa- important methanes trimethylolphenol tion of the salts of stages later between reaction solution. reaction oc- The phenol formaldehyde. Walker curs the elimination of water and reported 3,3', separation of first formaldehyde 2 moles between - - - 5,5' tetramethylol 4,4' dihydroxy- appears trialcohol and first- diphenylmethane phenol-for- from a dependent order reaction maldehyde in 1935. reaction mixture trimethylolphenol. centration This years A few made a de- later Seebach significant quantities would mean that study compound *. tailed tetraalcohol would be formed # * * * * stages later a reaction synthesis phenol reported Seto between has after tetramethylol appreciable quantities derivatives of the trialcohol 2,2'-2 2,4'-dihydroxydiphenylme- system. had accumulated in A high previously thane to the addition 4,4/-isomer. e.g., neighborhood tetramethylol known or 3 to 2of ******** ^[********] tion states: tamers” mation of less combined other molecules of said in length specification other bined ratio of to 2.52. therefore, hyde, above of monomeric * * * than reaction loto products. has words, 2.5, appellants’ is about it is difficult formaldehyde-phenol 2.5. As “trímera,” molecular practiced been found in range range in value from 2.45 corresponding examples ttoo like, consists of a mixture predominating brief trimethylol phenol appellants’ “tetramers,” in this weight to obtain a com- 2.08 to all with formalde- given carrying possessing lead to for- units. invention, condensa- n specifica- 1.92. ratio of phenols in this values, chain “pen- out 4'-isomers, within the n=2 in fn. “dimer” phasis vention. This age is suitable for the found that free of salts without the other methylol groups means, hyde-to-phenol ed erly ganic carried resistant material. corresponding * * * too product chain cure the salts are removed low the 2'-compound corresponds and it supplied.] such as too far scope If 1, supra. However, length infusible hand, can be used course, lignin to a combined formalde- corresponds product degree is insufficient degree if the condensation is impossible state is obtained when of 3.3 to 2.0. the claims. purpose ion and form a water resin. number of condensation severe exchange. too soluble low condens- if some other 2.3 to 2.52 4'- and We the inor- included wash it loss of to the prop- [Em- aver- free in- On

341 “polymethylol their com- discloses of formation favors “predominating phenol” chain a pounds, detected has they have been but length” phenol long He con- re- of units.” “two 1. A to at a ratio of 0.8 even : cluded tetraal- period favor the action would * * * cohol; reaction shorter a tetramethylol somewhat clearly, the give trialco- period of more would 4,4/-diphenylmethane a Martin has of il- Many points well are of these phenol hol. length units chain of two presented data lustrated phenol ratio combined to sup- [Emphasis and Lewis. Freeman respectfully of 2.50:1. It is submitted plied.] that no or unobvious novel claimed; phenol or discovered has been processes for also discloses Martin * * * [Emphasis supplied.] more com- of of manufacture “some agreed. 3 board resins,” One-Stage stat- mon resoles ing: Disposition appeal not been has of this seeming inconsist- facilitated certain mole each For RESIN. CASTING arguments made encies between appellants’ formaldehyde as 2.5 moles of of their the content brief and employed. The formalin solution catalyst may claims, specification result- alkali such engendered just uncertainty to ant Approxi- NaOH, KOH, or LiOH. claiming. ar- Their what per grams mately caustic 10% gument predi- respect to Martin re- typical with the disclosure cated on Martin’s asserted only reflux at held action mixture trimethylol phenol where- dimers temperature hours. for lV^-lVz brief, as, according appellants’ their neutralized is then cooled and resin point reactants are condensed “to citric, lactic, pHa of 5.5-6.5 with equal n to to 5” and claims where * [Emphasis tartaric acid. purportedly to a con- and 3 directed supplied.] “consisting dimers mixture densate pentamers.” the examiner: mix-

Said a condensate With penta- consisting ture mers, dimers ** empha- (and noted course, appear, quite would tetramethylol compound sized) that the impossible formalde- have a combined (four) meth- in Martin has relied on greater hyde than 2.5. bridge methylene ylol groups Appellants explained how have not nuclei) (joining phenolic the two having a obtain combined a condensate * * *, formalde- has 5 “combined” greater formaldehyde-phenol ratio nuclei, phenolic hyde groups for two g. 2.52, 2.5, presence than e. without formaldehyde- giving a “combined trimethylol phenol proportion a fair to-phenol is thus ratio” of to 1. (at if monomer least one assumes 4% tetramethylolphenol com- seen that only mono- 2.52 ratio material contains quoted pound art meets or, mer and if one dimer assumes appealed recitation in the “mix- “trimers” etc. ture,” higher percentage substantially respect “and claim limitation With corresponding to that degree monomer such quired maintain soluble insoluble but that it is water that, might one also including methanol,” 2.52. In view solvents necessary seemingly specifica- wonder how appellants’ examiner noted that extent, water. ketones, and, to some Kirk-Otlimer, Encyclopedia According to complex They mainly 10, p. mix- Technology, of a consist Vol. 336- of Chemical relatively with a ture of alcohols (1953), molecular are low resoles [Emphasis sup- hydroxyl high content.” phenol-formaldehyde resins weight plied.] alcohols, alkalies, “which are soluble *10 trimethylol water-soluble is evident sate (1) sate no whereupon (a) the brief product accepting claim recitation trimethylol phenol monomer that: the condensate at face appellants’ claims 2.5/1 insoluble. value, their conden- that 2 and 3 neces- arguments is consistent To contains conden- me it CCPA United States Court of Customs Edward Eugene Certiorari Denied Dec. and Patent June H. FREDKIN, Appellant, Appeal IRASEK, Appellee. v. Appeals. No. 7986. 9, 1968. directly sarily on tetra- read See 89 S.Ct. 450. 2,2'- methylol 4,4'- derivatives dihydoxydiphenylmethane com- be known

Martin discloses (b)

pounds Mar- discussion of specific in- failure to disclose

tin’s properties of herent materials those immaterial,4 wholly

(2) Following appellants’ lead of prod-

specification, their condensate necessarily

uct a substan- contains portion tial trime- water-soluble

thylol phenol and does not therefore distinguish any over conventional

A-Stage or resin. resole respect

With 1 the

majority rely heavily seems to

limitation therein that reactants

cooled 10°C. sulfuric while (1)

acid. In view of the that fact most

of the references in the record before us

disclose that the reactants must be cooled

both to arrest dur- ing neutralization, (2) appel- the fact specification particular

lants’ attaches no significance to that limitation in examples,

its seems me the board finding correct limitation Ap- well within the skill the art.

pellants certainly appear do not be in position argue favorable criti- its cality. Cole, re F.2d 51 CC (1964). PA 919 respect remaining claims,

With to the

I am satisfied that the examiner and

board concluding were correct particular subject matter is obvious prior view of the I art. would affirm.- pertinent note, properties. the board and characteristic point out, Appellants’ argument solicitor in the brief does presented place no evidence that not take the evidence rec- Cole, disclosed Martin do not have on that ord score. re infra.