Appeal No. 2004-2208
Application No. 10/158,988
b) chain extending the NCO prepolymer with
4) at least one aliphatic diamine chain
extender in
5) a solvent
to form the polyurethane/urea in solution.
4. The process of Claim 1 in which the catalyst
used is a naphthenic acid or a C6-C20 monocarboxylic
acid salt of a metal selected from the group
consisting of zinc, barium, lead, calcium, cerium,
cobalt, copper, tin, lithium, manganese, bismuth, and
zirconium.
15. The polyurethane/urea produced by the
process of Claim 1.
16. The polyurethane/urea produced by the
process of Claim 4.
The examiner relies on the following prior art reference as
evidence of unpatentability:
Seneker et al. 5,691,441 Nov. 25, 1997
(Seneker)
Claims 1 through 4, 6 through 16, and 18 through 21 on
appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1, as failing to
comply with the enablement requirement. (Examiner’s answer
mailed May 12, 2004, pages 3-4.) In addition, claims 15 through
18, 20, and 21 on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Seneker. (Id. at 4-5.)
We reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1, but
affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or, in the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007