Appeal No. 94-3371
Application 07/986,878
to the obviousness-type double patenting and non-enabling
rejections that these rejections should be reversed.
Rejection for Obviousness
The examiner rejected claims 2-7, 9-17 and 73 as being
obvious over Nadler. Nadler relates to a method of recovering
toluene-2,4-diisocyanate (TDI) from a reaction mass (a tar
residue) which forms during the preparation of TDI (col. 1, lines
14-19). Although TDI is distilled from the reaction mass,
according to Nadler, “an appreciable quantity [of TDI] remains in
the concentrated viscous tar, from which complete removal by
simple distillation techniques is difficult” (col. 1, lines 27-
31).
To solve this problem, Nadler mixes the reaction mass with
an oil solution containing a hydrocarbon oil and a minor amount
of a dispersant (col. 1, lines 56-70). The amount of dispersant
in the oil solution is from 0.05% to 3.0% based on the weight of
the oil. The dispersant comprises a reaction product of two
components (col. 1, lines 18-29). The first component is amine
free and includes long chain alkyl methacrylates or unsaturated
dicarboxylic acid derivatives such as laurylethyl maleate or
laurylfumarate (col. 3, lines 30-39). The second component
contains a basic nitrogen and includes compounds such as
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007