Appeal No. 1999-1279
Application 08/802,294
The examiner argues that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of these teachings
by Nissen, to advantageously use a polyester polyol in
St. Clair’s composition to obtain effects which are the same
as or similar to those disclosed by Nissen (answer, page 5).
The examiner, however, does not explain why Nissen’s
disclosure of relative
properties of polyurethanes made using linear polyesters
versus polyether polyols would have led one of ordinary skill
in the art to add a polyester polyol to a composition for
making a polyurethane adhesive or sealant. Also, the examiner
does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have considered the presence of a component which has good low
temperature stability in polyurethane elastomers but causes
reduced low temperature flexibility in such elastomers, to be
beneficial in an adhesive or sealant composition.
For the above reasons, the examiner’s explanation as to
why the applied prior art would have fairly suggested, to one
of ordinary skill in the art, including a polymeric diol in
St. Clair’s composition is inadequate. The examiner,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007