Appeal No. 1999-2534
Application No. 08/577,915
adhesion promoters with the urethane-containing polymers such that there are no free
isocyanate groups present when the foams are impregnated. Thus, the rejection set
out at page 5, which is based on Doerer and Usifer alone, must fall.
We find that the examiner’s reliance on Berger is faulty because the examiner
has made no findings of fact that show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
had a reason to use silanes taught to be useful in moisture-cured adhesives in the
impregnating compositions taught by Doerer, which rely exclusively on heat-curing.
Thus, the rejection set out in the examiner’s answer at pages 7–8, which relies
exclusively on the combination of the teachings of Doerer and Berger, must fall.
We have reviewed the additional arguments of the examiner regarding the
dependent claims (Answer at 5–7) as well as the examiner’s arguments in rebuttal to
Appellants’ arguments (id. at 8–10), but we find that they do not cure the deficiencies
we have identified.
C. Decision
Upon consideration of the appeal, and solely for the reasons given, the
examiner’s rejection is reversed.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007