Appeal No. 1996-2874
Application No. 08/027,849
has not evinced that the claimed reaction resin compositions
are patentably different from the prior art resin
compositions. In fact, appellant has acknowledged at page 7
of the Brief that a reaction resin can be cured at the claimed
temperature condition of 60 C (albeit inefficiently), withouto
any additional components.
Further, appellant argues that the claimed product-by-
process limitation imparts an unexpected property to the
product, thereby rebutting the prima facie case established by
the examiner. See, e.g., Reply Brief, pages 1-3. In support
of his position, appellant refers to pages 1 and 2 of the
specification, which reads as follows:
In cross-linking of the jacket layer, which was
previously typically done thermally, shrinkage
occurs, however, which can in turn lead to hairline
cracks in the liner. The production of such tubes
therefore requires not only a great deal of
experience, but is also time-consuming and
expensive, and this makes itself felt in the
relatively high prices for the finished products.
Instead of the usual thermal cross-linking of the
outer layer, cold curing of such synthetic resins is
already known, but that has the disadvantage in turn
that the UP resin, provided with hardeners and
accelerators, allows only very brief processing
times of the starting mixture. EP resins can also
be processed by cold curing; however, the curing
time is longer than with UP resins.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007