Appeal No. 2006-0436
Application No. 09/942,465
and distinctly claim the subject matter which the appellants
regard as their invention. Claims 1 through 15 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of either Reiff ‘370 or ‘737 and Danner.
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
prior art, including all of the evidence and arguments advanced
by both the examiner and the appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review has led us to conclude that
only the examiner’s Section 103 rejection is well founded.
Accordingly, we only affirm the examiner’s Section 103 rejection
for essentially the factual findings and conclusions set forth in
the Answer, the Supplemental Answer and below.
As evidence of obviousness of the claimed subject matter
under Section 103, the examiner relies on the combined
disclosures of either Reiff ‘370 or ‘737 and Danner.5 According
to the examiner (the Answer, page 4), Reiff ‘370 and ‘737
individually teach
the production of blocked isocyanates and their use
with water-proofing and oil-proofing fluorocarbon
5For purposes of this appeal, claims 1-15 stand or fall together. Compare the Answer,
page 3, with the Brief in its entirety.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007