Appeal No. 96-1641
Application No. 08/225,036
Horacek encompasses the hydroxyl numbers of claim 9 and
renders them obvious. Although appellants have stated that
the polyester polyols have outstanding properties, the record
before us is devoid of any relevant comparative evidence
showing unusual or unexpected results for the claimed
polyester polyols as discussed below.
Although the specification before us contains comparative
examples 9 through 16, the data contained therein are neither
relevant nor persuasive of the issue at hand. Each of
examples 9, which is compared to example 8, and 10 through 16
contain comparisons between unreacted polyisocyanates and
reaction products thereof with various polyols including
polyester polyols to form the claimed prepolymer. We find
that the unreacted polyisocyanate comparative controls are not
representative of the teachings of Horacek. Patentee,
Horacek, requires the formation of a prepolymer by the
reaction of polyisocyanate mixture with polyols in the same
manner as appellants. Accordingly, no weight has been given
to appellants’ comparative examples.
As for claim 12 requiring a mixture of polyols we are
unpersuaded by appellants’ arguments. The disclosure of
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007