Appeal No. 1997-3609
Application No. 08/483,349
we are constrained to reverse the rejection before us.
Other issues
We have decided this case based solely on the issues
framed and briefed before us. Namely, appellants argue that
the language "consisting essentially of" in claim 1 excludes
the diamines and triamines of Dormish. The examiner has not
disputed this interpretation of claim 1. Therefore, for
purposes of our decision, we have adopted the examiner's and
appellants' interpretation of claim 1, i.e., a contact
adhesive as claimed which excludes the diamines and/or
triamines disclosed in Dormish. However, in the event of
further prosecution, the examiner should determine whether the
claims do in fact exclude the diamines and/or triamines of
Dormish.
The contact adhesive of claim 1 is a polyurethane/urea
composition "consisting essentially of" a polyisocyanate or
polyisocyanate adduct, a polyol blend and at least one
polyether having at least two isocyanate-reactive groups. It
is well-settled that in the phrase "consisting essentially
of," the word "essentially" opens a claim to the inclusion of
ingredients which would not materially affect the basic and
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007