Appeal No. 2004-2322 Page 3
Application No. 09/385,412
Discussion
The claims stand or fall together. Appeal Brief, page 3. We will consider claim 1
as representative of the claims on appeal; claims 2-29 will stand or fall with claim 1.
See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (now 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
Claim 1 is directed to an aerosol device comprising a container, containing a
composition and a propellant, and a means for distributing the composition (“a
distribution valve controlled by a distribution head, which itself can comprise a nozzle”;
specification, page 11). Claim 1 specifies that the composition contained in the claimed
device comprises a polycondensate that contains a polyurethane or polyurea and “is
formed by an arrangement of blocks, this arrangement being obtained from:
(1) at least one compound which contains at least two active hydrogen atoms per
molecule;
(2) at least one diol containing at least one functional group chosen from acid
radicals and salts thereof; and
(3) at least one isocyanate chosen from di- and polyisocyanates.”
Claim 1 also requires a minimum weight ratio of propellant to organic solvent and
requires the device to be “suitable for giving an initial flow rate of aerosol composition of
less than or equal to 0.75 gram per second.”
The examiner rejected the claims as obvious in view of Mougin and Dunne.
Mougin discloses the polycondensate defined in instant claim 1. That is, Mougin
discloses a polycondensate that comprises “blocks of polyurethane and/or polyurea.”
Column 4, line 4. The polycondensate is prepared by a two-stage process. Column 3,
lines 7-24. In the first stage, a polysiloxane is reacted with a diisocyanate. See column
3, lines 35-58. The polysiloxane preferably comprises two amine (–NH–) groups, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007