Appeal No. 1997-1991 Page 7
Application No. 08/376,270
However, on this record, we disagree with the examiner’s
views on this matter. “Before the PTO may combine the
disclosures of two or more references in order to establish
prima facie obviousness, there must be some suggestion for
doing so, found either in the references themselves, or in the
knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the
art.” In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 350, 21 USPQ2d 1941, 1943-44
(Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598-99 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Here, the examiner makes reference to alleged well known
faster reaction and less foaming (answer, page 3) when it is
not clear where Mosbach discloses that such are necessary or
desirable in forming their coating or where Coogan clearly
discloses such advantages with respect to amine extenders used
in the amounts called for in the present claims in forming a
coating composition. Concerning the amine chain extender, the
examiner has not clearly identified where Coogan teaches an
amount of chain extender within the NCO/NH index range as
2
claimed herein (See page 5 of the brief).
From our perspective, the teachings of Mosbach regarding
the use of an isocyanate dimer in a polyisocyanate mixture
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007