Appeal No. 1996-2472
Application 08/075,297
Waugh and Ellison; and claims 1, 2, 4-10, 17 and 18 over
Waugh.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with
appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not well
founded. Accordingly, we reverse these rejections.
Appellants’ claim 1, which is the sole independent claim,
requires that the polyurethane is derived from an aqueous
urethane dispersion and has glass transition and melting
temperatures within recited ranges. The examiner argues that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at an
aqueous urethane dispersion and the recited temperature ranges
through routine optimization (answer, pages 7 and 9;
supplemental answer, pages 3 and 6). This is mere 2
2The examiner presents no evidence or reasoning which
shows that an aliphatic polyurethane substrate made by a
method other than one using an aqueous urethane dispersion
would be the same or substantially the same as one made using
-3-3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007