Appeal No. 1997-3620 Page 2
Application No. 08/386,795
OPINION
An important consideration for the examiner’s § 103 rejection concerns the process
requirements of claim 10 of molding or compressing the product formed in step a) of claim 10, i.e.,
molding or compressing a product resulting from combining a “material to be bonded”1 with a
composition comprising 1) an aromatic polyisocyanate and 2) a polyester having an average molecular
weight of from 600 to about 5000 obtained by self-condensation of ricinoleic acid alone or by
condensation of ricinoleic acid with a C2-C20 starter polyol, and optionally 3) an additive, at a
temperature of from about 1800C to about 2500C, for the production of a composite material.
It is appellants’ position that Legue ’682 is not pertinent prior art as it concerns an adhesive
composition, rather than a molding process for the production of a composite material. Legue ‘682 is
directed to adhesive compositions (col. 1, lines 8-12), especially adhesive compositions having
improved green strength (col.1, lines 44-68, col.2, lines 1-10).
Obviousness under § 103 is a legal conclusion based upon facts revealing the scope and content
of prior art, the differences between prior art and the claims at issue, the level of ordinary skill in the art,
and objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 86 S.Ct. 684, 383 U.S. 1,
17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). The scope and content of the prior art is that which is
1 The phrase “material to be bonded” is found in the specification, on page 7, at lines 2-3, and refers to
the materials identified on page 6, lines 23-27 and page 7, lines 1-5 of the specification. The materials
include, inter alia, wood, bark plastic wastes of all kinds, etc.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007