Appeal No. 96-2505
Application No. 08/122,417
prepolymers thereof to possess such a property. Similarly,
because this claim does not require the prepolymer to be
dispersed in water before reaction with an aminoalcohol, the
appellants' arguments regarding this feature are simply
irrelevant.
We have carefully considered each of the arguments advanced
by the appellants regarding the other claims on appeal. In some
cases, the arguments are unconvincing because they are premised
upon an incorrect test for obviousness. As an example, the
adipic acid and/or phthalic acid feature of dependent claim 26
would have been suggested by Schwab (e.g., see lines 16 through
33 in column 3), and the appellants' remark that such components
"are not explicitly stated [by Schwab] as preferred materials"
(brief, page 22) has no apparent relevance to the section 103
issue under consideration. See Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs.,
874 F.2d 804, 808, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
In other cases, the arguments advanced by the appellants
lack merit because they are plainly contrary to the express
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007