Appeal No. 1996-2572
Application No. 08/192,077
stable composition (step A of claim 1), and that a curing
catalyst for the resole resin may be precombined with the
resorcinolic resin to also obtain a stable composition (step B
of claim 1). That it is “notoriously well known in the art to
improve stability of a composition and delay onset of cure by
keeping the catalyst separate from the resin to be cured until
such time as onset of cure is desired” as alleged by the
examiner in the final rejection at page 5, is a fact
exemplified in the references relied upon by the examiner.
See, for example, the Stephan reference at column 2, lines 34-
44 and Daily at column 4, lines 20-23. However, as emphasized
by appellants in their briefs and above, steps A and B of the
appealed method claims require more than merely separating two
resins from their respective curing catalyst. Based on the
record before us, we find no adequate reason, suggestion, or
motivation to modify the Daily mixing process in a manner
which corresponds to the herein claimed method. Accordingly,
we cannot sustain the examiner’s stated rejections of appealed
method claims 1-19.
The rejections of appealed composition claims 23-27 are
another matter. As pointed out at the oral hearing, these
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007