Appeal No. 96-1641
Application No. 08/225,036
the isocyanate content required by Watts. We conclude that
appellants’ argument is again not well founded.
The Horacek reference
We next turn to the rejection of claims 1 and 13 as
anticipated by Horacek under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We will
sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 13. We adopt the
findings of the examiner in the Answer that each of the
required components are taught by Horacek. We add our own
comments for emphasis.
Appellants have argued in their Reply Brief, at p. 3,
that the binder composition of Horacek is distinguished based
upon their own composition being primarily polyphenyl
polymethylene polyisocyanate as contrasted with the optional
presence of the same component in Horacek. A comparison of
claims 1 and 13 with the teachings of Horacek does not support
appellants’ contentions. Claim 1 requires the presence of
"from about 50 to about 60% by weight," of polyphenyl
polymethylene polyisocyanate. Horacek specifically teaches in
column 2, lines 1 to 3 and claim 1, line 17, "about 50 weight
percent polyphenyl polymethylene polyisocyanate," meeting the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007