Appeal No. 96-2504
Application 08/318,328
claims, appellants do not challenge the examiner's legal
conclusion that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to make the polyisocyanate of Hombach with
TMXDI in order to give the polyurethanes a lower viscosity
(page 10 of answer). Rather, appellants again contend that
such compositions of Hombach "will be outside the scope of
Claims 7-24, because these claims exclude the presence of the
aqueous adhesives required by Hombach et al." (page 7 of
brief). For the reasons discussed above, we find that this
argument is non-persuasive. While appellants also maintain at
page 7 of the principal brief "there would be no motivation
for a skilled artisan to omit
these adhesives from the coating composition of Hombach et
al."
this misstates the issue. Since we find that the claim
language "containing" does not preclude the presence of
Hombach's adhesive components in the claimed composition, we
do not reach the issue of whether the claim language "consists
essentially of" excludes the adhesive components of Hombach to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007