Ex parte MAYER et al. - Page 4




          Appeal No. 1998-3147                                                        
          Application 08/564,304                                                      


          place in a solvent, acetone and methyl ethyl ketone being                   
          particularly suitable solvents, and reacting the free                       
          isocyanate groups of the intermediate with specified polyols                
          (col. 3, line 8 - col. 4, line 21).                                         
               Chandalia discloses a coating composition which is to be               
          subsequently moisture cured and which consists essentially of               
          at least one polyisocyanate prepolymer which is the reaction                
          product of a polyisocyanate with an active hydrogen-containing              
          compound which can be a polyol (col. 2, lines 53-61; col. 6,                
          lines 37-41).  The composition can contain a solvent, the                   
          disclosed suitable solvents including methyl ethyl ketone and               
          ethoxyethyl propionate (col. 6, lines 1-17).1                               
               The examiner argues that it would have been obvious to                 
          one of ordinary skill in the art to use ethoxyethyl propionate              
          as Hille’s solvent because Chandalia teaches the equivalence                
          of ethoxyethyl propionate and methyl ethyl ketone as solvents               
          (answer, page 4).                                                           
               Hille teaches that his solvents preferably are inert to                
          isocyanate groups (col. 4, lines 14-15; col. 7, lines 28-34).               

               Blum is relied upon by the examiner (answer, page 3) only for a disclosure of butoxypropanol1                                                                     
          as recited in the appellants’ dependent claim 3.                            
                                          4                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007