Appeal No. 2005-1247
Application No. 09/963,423 Page 6
Accordingly, based on the present record, the rejection of
claims 2-11, 13-21, 25, 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, for lack of enablement cannot be sustained.
§ 102 Rejection
To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose
every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In the case before us the examiner maintains that each of
the applied Reiff patents anticipate claims 2-11, 13-20, 25, 27
and 28. In making this determination, the examiner refers to the
abstract and each of columns 2-12 of each of the applied
references.
All of those rejected claims require either a product or
process of producing a product that is “a solid, pulverulent,
water-dispersible, blocked polyisocyanate adduct having particle
diameters of from about 1 to 1000 :m” (claims 2 and 25).
Appellants argue that none of the applied Reiff patents describe
a solid, water-dispersible, blocked polyisocyanate adduct product
in a powder (pulverulent) form that has particle diameters within
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007