Appeal No. 2006-0436
Application No. 09/942,465
conventional NCO-blocking agents, such as imidazole or the
claimed pyrazoles (pyrazole and pyrazole derivatives), to form
the blocked aromatic isocyanates taught by Reiff ‘370 and ‘737,
with a reasonable expectation of successfully making blocked
polyisocyanates useful for conferring at least an oil-repellent
and/or water-repellant finish on textile materials.
As a rebuttal to the prima facie case of obviousness
established by the examiner, the appellants rely on Deiner, Reiff
‘737, Baumbach and Konig to show that one of ordinary skill in
the art would not have been led to use the claimed pyrazole
blocking agents to form the blocked aromatic isocyanates taught
by Reiff ‘370 and ‘737.
See the Brief, pages 6-7. Specifically, the appellants assert
that these references teach
polyisocyanates that are blocked by pyrazole
derivatives and that are hydrophilized by incorporated
ethylene oxide groups or hydrocarboxylic acids.
... [the] blocked isocyanates are disadvantaged by
problems of permanent hydrophilicity; hence, inadequate
hydrophobicity which would lead the skilled artisan
away from the claims. See the Brief, page 6.
It appears to be the appellants’ position that polyisocyanates
having ethylene oxide groups that are blocked by the claimed
pyrazoles would have been expected to promote permanent
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007