Appeal No. 96-2505
Application No. 08/122,417
Under these circumstances, we cannot sustain the examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 25 through 53 and 55
through 58 as being anticipated by Schwab.
However, we agree with the examiner's conclusion that the
subject matter defined by the appealed claims would have been
obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the applied prior art.
In this regard, we emphasize that an artisan with ordinary
skill would have been led to use tetramethyl xylylene
diisocyanates (e.g., see lines 26-27 in column 2) specifically
for producing prepolymers and to disperse the prepolymers in
water (e.g., see lines 53-56 in column 5) for reaction with
aminoalcohol (e.g., see lines 35-51 in column 4) as required by
appealed claim 25 in light of Schwab's disclosure of such
features as viable mechanisms for obtaining his desired OH-
functional polyurethane prepolymers. The appellants' arguments
to the contrary are unpersuasive primarily because they do not
correspond to the limitations of claim 25. For example, with
regard to the appellants' arguments concerning the property of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007