4. There came a time during the prosecution when
the examiner rejected claims 1 and 3 as being unpatentable
under 37 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Gras, U.S. Patent 5,173,5602
(Paper 4, page 2).
5. The examiner also rejected the claims 1-3 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Cook, U.S.
3 4
Patent 5,216,078 or Konig, U.S. Patent 5,523,377 in view of
Uhrhan, U.S. Patent 4,178,279 (Paper 4, pages 3-4).5
6. Part of applicants' effort to overcome the
anticipation rejection based on Gras involved an amendment to
claim 1. Specifically, applicants amended claim 1 as follows
(relevant additional limitations underscored) (Paper 8, page
2):
1. (Amended) A (cyclo)aliphatic polyisocyanate
composition which has a content of blocked and unblocked
isocyanate groups (calculated as NCO) of 5 to 25 wt%, in
which at least 95% of the isocyanate groups are present
in a form blocked with a blocking agent, which does not
contain a 2,2,6,6-tetramethyl piperydinyl group, and
Gras is prior art vis-a-vis applicants under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).2
Cook is prior art vis-a-vis applicants under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).3
Konig is prior art vis-a-vis applicants under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and § 102(e).4
Uhrhan is prior art vis-a-vis applicants under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).5
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007