Ex parte BRAHM et al. - Page 5




                compound to yield a urethane compound, which may then be reacted with an aromatic diisocyanate to                         

                yield the allophanate.  (Examiner’s Answer, Paper No.  24, p. 4).                                                         

                        The examiner acknowledges that Windemuth fails to disclose “extensive” details regarding the                      

                use of the allophanates in coating compositions.  The examiner relies upon Hicks to remedy this alleged                   

                deficiency.  Generally, the examiner cites Hicks for its teaching that allophanates can be combined with                  

                aldimines to form a binder for a coating composition.  (Paper No. 24, p. 5).                                              

                        Appellants’ argue that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness                     

                for the claimed invention.  Appellants’ contend that the Windemuth reference teaches the formation of                     

                an allophanate by reacting: (i) an n-substituted carbamic ester; (ii) an aromatically bound                               

                polyisocyanate; and (iii) a compound having an alkylating effect.  (Paper No. 23, p. 4).  According to                    

                appellants’, Windemuth teaches that the n-substituted carbamic ester can be made from “any hydroxyl                       

                compound with equal success.”  (Paper No. 23, p. 4, citing Windemuth, col. 3, lines 22-28).                               

                Furthermore, appellants’ direct our attention to Windemuth’s teaching that the reaction of the hydroxyl                   

                group-containing compounds with the isocyanates may be carried out at an NCO:OH ratio of less than,                       

                equal to, or greater than 1.  (Paper No. 23, p. 4, citing Windemuth, col. 4, lines 24-29).                                

                        In establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, the prior art reference (or references when                    

                combined) must teach or suggest all the claim limitations.  See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385,                        

                165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970) (“All words in a claim must be considered in judging the                                    

                patentability of that claim against the prior art.”).  Furthermore, any motivation to modify the prior art                

                references must flow from some teaching in the art that suggests the desirability or incentive to make the                

                modification needed to arrive at the claimed invention.  In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d                        

                                                                 Page 5                                                                   





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007