Appeal No. 2006-2662
Application No. 09/928,764
the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case that Jakubowski 552 or
Tabor anticipates claims 1. Claim 9 also requires use of “MDI having a
P,P’-isomer content from 99 to 90 percent,” so our reasoning above applies
equally to claim 9.
The present rejection is for obviousness, not anticipation, but the
Examiner has not set forth sufficient basis to conclude that claim 1 or 9
would have been obvious over Jakubowski 552 or Tabor. The Examiner
relies on Alsaffar only for limitations recited in the dependent claims, and
has not pointed to any disclosure in Alsaffar that would make up for the
deficiencies discussed above. Thus, we conclude that the Examiner has not
set forth a prima facie case that claims 8, 11 and 12 would have been
obvious in view of the cited references. We therefore reverse the
obviousness rejection of these claims.
OTHER ISSUES
For the reasons discussed above, we have concluded that the
Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case that Jakubowski 027,
Jakubowski 552, or Tabor anticipates the present claims. However, we note
that Friedel and Fischer disclose incompletely purified compositions
containing, e.g., about 98% 4,4’-MDI. On return of this case, the Examiner
should consider whether those of ordinary skill in the art would have found
it obvious to combine the 98% 4,4’-MDI taught by Friedel or Fischer with
the methods taught by Jakubowski 027, Jakubowski 552, and/or Tabor. If
so, an obviousness rejection based on the combined teachings of the prior art
may be appropriate.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013