Appeal No. 2000-1155
Application No. 08/908,655
would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art to
remove any excess polyisocyanate monomer from the prepolymer of
Quay in order to achieve results (e.g., involving workplace
hygiene) known to be desirable in the prior art.
Finally, the appellants repeatedly point out that their
claimed composition exhibits long pot life and rapid cure time,
thereby implying that these properties are unexpected and thus
evidence of nonobviousness.
However, Quay expressly discloses that his compositions
possess an extended pot life (e.g., see lines 39-43 in column 2).
In light of this disclosure, a long pot life would have been an
expected rather than unexpected property of the here claimed
compositions (which are conceded by the appellants themselves as
being at least similar to patentee’s compositions).
As for the property of cure time, the record before us
contains little if any probative evidence that the appellants’
claimed compositions possess a cure time property which is
unexpectedly superior or even different compared to the cure time
property of Quay’s compositions. In this regard, the appellants
refer to Quay’s disclosure at lines 7-8 in column
9 of a cure time of 20 hours at 80oC, and they contrast this cure
time disclosure of Quay with the 2 to 18 minutes cure time
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007