Appeal No. 96-1641
Application No. 08/225,036
We next turn to the rejection of claims 2-12 as being
unpatentable over Horacek under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Although
appellants have not specifically stated whether the claims
stand or fall together, we note that claims 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10
and 11 have been argued together by appellants, in their Reply
Brief, p. 5, paragraph C, and each of the remaining claims
have been separately argued. Accordingly, we shall consider
claim 2 as representative of the first group of claims and
consider each of the remaining claims individually. We affirm
the rejection of claims 2 to 5 and 7 to 12 and reverse the
rejection of claim 6.
Claim 2 requires the additional limitation wherein
component a)2, "is present as 42%-46% by weight of the
isocyanate mixture." We interpret the limitation of 42%-46%
a)2 as requiring the reciprocal presence of 58%-54% of
component a)1, i.e. the polyphenyl polymethylene
polyisocyanate, to give meaning to the claim. Appellants
argue that Horacek does not teach or suggest use of isocyanate
mixtures in which more than 50% polyphenyl polymethylene
polyisocyanate is present. We disagree. Both the
specification and the claims of Horacek provide ample
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007