Appeal No. 1998-2733
Application 08/718,613
We reproduce here in context the relevant parts of the written description in the specification:
The anion is more preferably the conjugate base of an inorganic acid having one or more
delocalizable electrons, e.g., a fluoroalkyl sulfonate or a tetraorganoboron ion. Such anions
include, for example, . . . SCN-, . . . particularly tetraalkyl and tetraarylboron ions and non-
alkyl or non-aryl substituted sulfonic acids, and the like.
For the purposes of the present invention, the term non-volatile metal salt is further
defined to exclude those salts which are incompatible with or undesirable in formulations for
polymers having urethane and/or urea groups. For example, the anion of a non-volatile metal
salt of the present invention is not an SCN- [sic] anion because the salts of these anions can
cause handling problems due to viscosity growth in polyurea formulations. SCN- [sic] anions
are also known to be water extractable in some polyurethane formulations. This property can
cause handling problems in some painting applications. In contrast, non-volatile metal salts
having good compatibility with formulations for polymers having urethane and/or urea groups
are included and are preferred. For example, tetraphenylboron and hexafluorophosphate
anions are particularly preferred as conductivity inducing materials for the present invention
because of their compatibility and handling properties. Mixtures of the non-volatile metal
salts of the present invention can also be used to practice the present invention. Most
preferably, the non-volatile metal salts of the present invention are salts wherein the non-
volatile metal salt anion is selected from the group consisting of a perfluoroalkyl sulfonate, a
hexafluorophosphate anion. or mixtures thereof. [Page 8, line 14, to page 9, line 6.]
Appellants further point to the affidavit under 37 CFR § 1.132 of appellant Porter4 as “sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that the [NaSCN and NH4SCN] salts of [Ukai] are undesirable in the present
invention,” because it shows that “a formulation that includes the SCN salts . . . experience an
undesirable build in formulation viscosity,” “mixtures of the SCN salts . . . in polyols separate over
time, forming hazy suspensions,” and “SCN salts are water-extractable from the polymer parts in which
they are included” (brief, page 4). In response to the examiner’s contention that the evidence is not
commensurate in scope with the claims because “the tests were conducted under RIM conditions”
(Paper No. 13, page 2), which indeed is not a limitation in appealed claim 10, appellants argue that
“RIM formulations were chosen because the viscosity build in RIM formulations is likely to be more
pronounced, and therefore more demonstrative of the undesired effect. This should not negative the
conclusions regarding the sufficiency of the affidavit as applied to non-RIM formulations” (brief, page 5;
emphasis in the original omitted).
4 The affidavit was filed with the amendment of April 4, 1997 (Paper No. 12).
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007