Appeal No. 96-1641
Application No. 08/225,036
requirement of the claim. It is not clear whether the term,
"about 50 weight," percent means predominantly polyphenyl
polymethylene polyisocyanate as argued by appellants. It is
clear however, that this component and others are present in
amounts identically as much as required by appellants in their
claim 1. Horacek teaches the use of 10 weight percent of 2,4'
- diphenylmethane diisocyanate and 90 weight percent of 4,4' -
diphenylmethane diisocyanate in column 2, lines 14-18 meeting
appellants’ requirement in claim 1 of 4 to about 30% by weight
of 2,4' - diphenylmethane diisocyanate and 70 to 96% by weight
of 4,4' - diphenylmethane diisocyanate.
We are not persuaded by appellants’ characterization of
polyphenyl polymethylene polyisocyanate as an “optional
component” as negating anticipation in view of our previous
discussion. Nor do we necessarily require exemplification to
support a finding of anticipation. Our determination of
anticipation is determined on the unique merits of each case.
In the instant case, we are cognizant that the teachings of
Horacek overlap in range the claimed invention. The
overlapped teachings do not negate anticipation. It has been
held, that, "the disclosure in the prior art of any value
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007