Appeal No. 2006-2662
Application No. 09/928,764
We conclude that the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case
that Jakubowski 027 describes a polyurethane prepolymer prepared from a
formulation including a MDI diisocyanate having a P,P’-isomer content of
90 to 99 percent, or a dispersion or film formed from this prepolymer. We
therefore reverse the § 102 rejection of claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 24, 25, and 27-41
over Jakubowski 027.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 24, 25, and 27-41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as anticipated by Jakubowski 5524 and claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 24, 25,
and 27-41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Tabor.5
The Examiner’s and Appellants’ arguments with regard to these rejections
are substantially the same as the arguments raised with regard to Jakubowski
027. For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the Examiner has not
set forth a prima facie case that Jakubowski 552 or Tabor describes a
polyurethane prepolymer prepared from a formulation including a MDI
diisocyanate having a P,P’-isomer content of 90 to 99 percent, or a
dispersion or film formed from this prepolymer. Therefore, we also reverse
the § 102 rejections over Jakubowski 552 and Tabor.
2. OBVIOUSNESS
Claims 8, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Jakubowski 552 or Tabor in view of Alsaffar.6 Claims 8, 11, and 12
each depend from either claim 1 or claim 9. We have already concluded that
4 Jakubowski et al., PCT Published Patent Application No. WO 98/41552,
published September 24, 1998.
5 Tabor et al., PCT Published Patent Application No. WO 98/41554,
published September 24, 1998.
6 Alsaffar, U.S. Patent No. 6,389,602 B1, issued May 21, 2002.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013