Appeal No. 20006-0324
Application No. 10/095,154
Smith et al. (Smith) 5,096,993 Mar. 17, 1992
Kaufhold et al. (Kaufhold) DE 19940014 Jun. 21, 2000
All of the appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness in view of Kaufhold taken in combination with Smith.
We have carefully considered the evidentiary record in the case in light of the
opposing positions taken by the appellants and the examiner. Having done so, we
conclude that the prior art references relied upon by the examiner support a prima facie
case of obviousness, which is not outweighed by the evidence of nonobviousness
relied upon by the appellants. Accordingly, we shall affirm the rejection at issue.
Since we are in substantial agreement with the examiner’s position, as expressed
in the examiner’s answer, we adopt that position as our own. For that reason, we offer
the following remarks for purposes of emphasis.
Initially, we note that Kaufhold discloses TPU molding compositions prepared by
reacting HDI with a polyol component and a mixture of chain extenders. “Particularly
preferred” are TPU compositions which include, as the polyol component, “a mixture of
polyether polyol and polyester polyol” (pages 6, ll. 12-13; page 7, ll. 12-13). The
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007