Appeal No. 2002-2063
Application No. 09/635,093
appellants counsel’s arguments relating to the interpretation of
the solvent list of Furness, we choose to rely upon the plain
wording of Furness. We therefore are not persuaded by this
argument.
Appellants’ Point 9: The claims as requiring a two-component
system.
We agree with the appellants that the claims require a two-
component polyurethane system, a phenol and a polyisocyanate.
However, this mistake by the examiner is harmless error, as both
components are present in the Furness system, and as discussed
above, the appellants have not shown how the additional
constituents of Furness are excluded by the language “consisting
essentially of.”
Appellants’ Point 10: Ethylbenzene Solvent in Example 14
(Appeal Brief, page 25).
Appellants urge that ethylbenzene may be used to modify the
solubility characteristics of the polar solvents for the phenolic
compound, and is not a low-boiling solvent for the polyisocyanate.
Again, this argument relates to the interpretation of the solvent
list which the appellants urge us to adopt. We read the list as
more broadly inclusive than the appellants, and therefore are not
persuaded by this argument.
incorrect in his conclusion, but find the error to be harmless.
24
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007