13. A copy of claims 1-5 as finally rejected appears
as an appendix to this MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER.
Examiner's Answer
14. In the Examiner's Answer, claims 1-4 stand
rejected under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as
claiming subject matter not described in the specification, as
filed (Paper 14, page 3). The examiner did not pursue a § 112
rejection of claim 5 in the Examiner's Answer.
15. Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Cook or Konig in view of Uhrhan.
Other findings
16. Other findings appear in the discussion portion
of this MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER.
B. Discussion
1. Prior art rejection
The examiner acknowledges that neither Cook nor Konig
describe a composition containing a stabilizer (1) having
a 2,2,6,6-tetramethyl piperidinyl radical and (2) not having a
hydrazide structure (Paper 14, page 4). However, the examiner
found that the use of compounds "lacking hydrazide groups ***
to stabilize polyisocyanates and prepolymers *** [were] known
***" (Paper 14, page 4). To support his finding, the examiner
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007