Appeal No. 2000-1155
Application No. 08/908,655
All of the claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Quay.1
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete
discussion of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellants
and by the examiner regarding this rejection.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the answer and below, we will
sustain the above noted rejection.
It is the appellants’ fundamental contention that appealed
claim 12 distinguishes from Quay via the here claimed
requirements for an NCO content of 2 to 4 wt.% and a monomeric
polyisocyanate content of less than 2 wt.%. We cannot agree.
As the appellants themselves acknowledge, “Quay . . .
teaches that the prepolymer can have a relatively broad free NCO
content of 2 to 12% by weight (and even the preferred range is
from 3 to 9% by weight). See column 4, lines 32-40” (brief, page
3). Because Quay discloses that the prepolymer of his
composition can have an NCO content within the here claimed
range, the NCO content requirement of appealed claim 12 plainly
1As indicated by the appellants on page 2 of the brief, the
appealed claims are grouped together. Therefore, in our
assessment of the Section 103 rejection before us, we will focus
only on claim 12 which is the sole independent claim on appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007