Appeal No. 2000-1155
Application No. 08/908,655
is satisfied by the Quay reference. See In re Wertheim,
541 F.2d 257, 267, 191 USPQ 90, 100 (CCPA 1976) and Ex parte Lee,
31 USPQ2d 1105, 1106 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993).
As for the appellants’ claimed requirement for a monomeric
polyisocyanate content of less than 2 wt.%, we observe that, on
page 4 of the brief, the appellants acknowledge that it is known
to remove excess isocyanate monomer in compositions of the type
under consideration (also see the paragraph bridging pages 6 and
7 of the subject specification wherein the appellants state that
excess monomer is optionally separated from their prepolymer by
known technical methods). Moreover, as support for this
acknowledgment, the appellants refer to a copied excerpt,
attached to their brief, taken from the Polyurethane Handbook,
2nd Ed. This excerpt does indeed support the appellants’
acknowledgment, for example, on page 92 wherein it is disclosed
that “[r]emoval of the excess monomeric polyisocyanate from the
prepolymer is a requirement often based on considerations of
workplace hygiene.”
Under the circumstances recounted above, it is our
determination that the removal of excess polyisocyanate monomer
from a prepolymer by conventional techniques was known to be
desirable in the prior art. We conclude, therefore, that it
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007