Appeal No. 96-1641
Application No. 08/225,036
polyisocyanate mixture must have an isocyanate functionality
of 3 or higher. However, they fail to explain their position.
The claims before us are devoid of any requirement that the
polyphenyl polymethylene polyisocyanate have an isocyanate
functionality which is 3 or higher. Indeed, the terminology
used by appellants in defining this component,
“polyisocyanate” requires only a functionality of two or more.
Our conclusion is in part based upon a comparison of the term,
“polyisocyanate,” with the term, “diisocyanate” having a
specific functionality of two. Our position is further
supported by the teachings of Watts at column 6, lines 54 to
56 wherein patentee’s polymeric MDI, corresponding to
polyphenylpolymethylene polyisocyanate has a described
functionality of, "greater than two." We accordingly, find
that appellants’ invention as set forth in claim 1 requires
polyphenyl polymethylene polyisocyanate having a functionality
of two or more. It follows that appellants’ invention can
have an average isocyanate functionality in the range of 2.0
to 2.3 as encompassed by the instant claimed invention and
required by Watts, abstract, column 2, lines 36-39 and claim
1. Our position is further supported by the teaching of Watts
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007