Appeal No. 2005-1096
Application 08/894,156
DISCUSSION
Claims 1 to 5, 8 to 11 and 13 to 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Mohring I or Mohring II in view of Wagner I or Wagner II and
Hennig.
The Examiner has found that Mohring I and II disclose the production of biuret
containing polyisocyanates having a low unreacted polyisocyanate monomer content
and light color. Diisocyanates are reacted with an alcohol component, including
tertiary alcohols, an amine component, and water. The Examiner has additionally
found that the claimed stabilizers were known to be useful agents for the production
of biurets from Wagner I, Wagner II, and Hennig. (Answer, pp. 3-4).
The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to substitute the nitrogen-containing biuretizing agents of the
secondary references for the amine component of Mohring I or II as one would have
reasonably expected the nitrogen-containing compounds of the primary and
secondary references to function as equivalents. (Answer, p. 4).
The Appellants state that their claims define over the references due to the
fact that the stabilizer (c) is present in a maximum amount of 2.0 mol% on the
isocyanate groups in (a).3 Appellants also state that “the maximum amount of
stabilizer of the present claims is less than the minimum amount of biuretizing agent
necessary, as disclosed by Wagner et al. [sic, I or II]. In addition. . . , the substituted
3 The scope of the present claims on appeal differs from the claims of the previous appeal, inter alia, by
specifying the maximum amount of stabilizer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007