Appeal No. 95-0999
Application 07/925,347
Claims 1-21 and 27-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102 (b) as anticipated by Gillis or Cassidy.2
We have carefully reviewed the entire record, including
all of the arguments advanced by the examiner and appellants
in support of their respective positions. This review leads
us to conclude that the examiner’s § 102 rejections are well-
founded. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s § 102
rejections for substantially those reasons set forth in the
Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
The claimed subject matter is directed to a liquid
adhesive/sealant “reaction system” which comprises a
particular polyisocyanate and a curing agent having at least
one imino- or enamino-functional linkage. Appellants define
“imino-functional” so broadly as to include thousands, if not
millions, of compounds having at least one imino- or enamino-
functional linkage. See specification, pages 8-13.
Appellants also broadly define “reaction system” as including
a combination of at least two containers containing the
claimed components individually for the purpose of using them
The examiner has expressly withdrawn the rejection of claim 1 under2
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. See Answer, pages 2 and 5.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007