Ex Parte Verborgt et al - Page 6


             Appeal No. 2006-2677                                                          Page 6               
             Application No. 10/346,099                                                                         

             (column 4, line 19 through column 5, line 60).”  Examiner’s Answer, page 3.  In                    
             particular, the examiner notes that Holubka, at column 4, lines 21-26, discloses that the          
             “[p]referred chain-extendable, crosslink-able oligomers . . . are the reaction product of          
             (1) half-blocked diisocyanates with (2) certain preferred polyols.  These (2) preferred            
             polyols comprise an epoxy-diol adduct, more specifically the reaction product of a                 
             suitable diepoxide with diol.”  Examiner’s Answer, page 10.  In addition, the examiner             
             notes that the “[p]referred diols include ethylene glycol (1,2-ethane-diol) and                    
             1,3-propanediol (column 5, lines 19-24).”  Id.  The examiner argues that “the resulting            
             polyol (epoxy-diol adduct) corresponds with the polyol set forth in claim 9. . . . This            
             polyol (epoxy-diol adduct) is then reacted with a half-blocked diisocyanate (half-blocked          
             polyisocyanate) to form a chain-extendable, crosslink-able oligomer,” which anticipates            
             claim 9.  Examiner’s Answer, page 11.                                                              
                   Appellants argue that “Holubka discloses only reacting a polyol with a half-                 
             blocked diisocyanate.  Since a blocked isocyanate group is not an isocyanate group,                
             this is not a reaction of a polyol with a polyisocyanate.  It is a reaction of a polyol with a     
             monoisocyanate.  Further, a reaction of a polyol with a half-blocked diisocyanate does             
             not produce a thermoset as recited in present claim 9.”  Appeal Brief, page 5.                     
                   We agree with Appellants that the examiner has not set forth a prima facie case              
             that Holubka anticipates claim 9.  As discussed above, we agree with Appellants that a             
             half-blocked diisocyanate is not a polyisocyanate.  In addition, the examiner has not set          
             forth sufficient basis to conclude that reacting a half-blocked diisocyanate with a polyol         
             would result in the same product as reacting an unblocked diisocyanate with a polyol.              






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013