containing isocyanate groups blocked with any blocking agent
except a blocking agent containing a 2,2,6,6-tetramethyl
piperidinyl group. Accordingly, the examiner found that the
subject matter of claims 1-4, as amended, define subject
matter not described in the specification, as filed.
We agree-in-part and disagree-in-part.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and limits the blocking
agent to one which comprises butanone oxime. Claim 4 depends
from claim 1 and limits the blocking agent to a Markush group
of butanone oxime, diisopropylamine, 1,2,4-triazole,
imidazole, malonic ester, acetoacetic ester, dimethyl pyrazole
and ,-caprolactam. The lack of 2,2,6,6-tetramethyl
piperidinyl group limitation would not apply to the block
agents of claims 2 and 4. Hence, the examiner's rejection of
claims 2 and 4 based on a lack of written description cannot
be sustained.
However, we agree with the examiner's findings with
respect to claims 1 and 3 (with claim 3 [1] depending from
claim 1 and [2] not further limiting the blocking agent). The
specification, as filed, does not evidence applicants'
possession of the invention of claim 1, as currently worded.
Rather, on this record, it plainly appears that applicants
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007