Appeal No. 2006-0436
Application No. 09/942,465
54. We find that Reiff ‘370 and ‘737 teach “[e]xamples of
suitable blocking agents” as including, inter alia, imidazole.
See Reiff ‘370, column 10, lines 54-64 and Reiff ‘737, column 10,
lines 54-64. Although Reiff ‘370 and ‘737 do not specifically
mention the claimed pyrazoles, the examiner correctly finds at
pages 4 and 5 of the Answer that the claimed pyrazoles are
conventional NCO “blocking agents within [sic, for]
polyisocyanate compositions to be used as textile finishes
yield[ing] finishes having improved oil-and water-repellant
properties and improved fastness properties.” See Danner, pages
1 and 2. Indeed, the appellants do not dispute this finding.
Compare the Answer, pages 4-5, with the Brief in its entirety.
Nor do the appellants dispute the examiner’s finding that Danner
teaches that “a preferred polyisocyanate is MDI, which is
aromatic” and that the claimed pyrazoles are isomers of
(structurally similar to) imidazole taught by Reiff ‘370 and
‘737. Compare the Answer, page 5, with the Brief in its
entirety. We find that Danner also teaches that the blocking of
the isocyanate groups with the claimed pyrazoles can take place
at a temperature above 50 0C. See page 7.
Given the above teachings, we concur with the examiner that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007