Appeal No. 96-1641
Application No. 08/225,036
Horacek generally provides for the use of polyols. The
paragraph at column 2, lines 24 to 37 further provides for
polyesters, "resulting from reaction with the above-mentioned
polyols." It would be unduly restrictive to interpret the
teachings of Horacek as being limited to the use of only a
single polyol in contrast to polyol mixtures. Furthermore, it
is considered prima facie obvious to combine two polyols each
of which is taught by Horacek to be useful for the same
purpose, in order to form an isocyanate terminated prepolymer
which is to be used for the very same purpose. In re
Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1 to 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Watts is affirmed. The rejection of claim 1
and 13 as anticipated by Horacek under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
affirmed. The rejection of claims 2 to 5 and 7 to 12 as
unpatentable over Horacek under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed. The rejection of claim 6 as unpatentable over
Horacek under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007