Appeal No. 2006-0739
Application No. 09/802,760
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3 through 10, 25 through 33 and 47 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Schlueter, Chen and Ramos.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the Brief and the Reply Brief,
we reverse the aforementioned § 103 rejection. We add the
following primarily for emphasis and completeness.
As evidence of obviousness of the claimed subject matter
under § 103, the examiner relies on the combined disclosures of
Schlueter, Chen and Ramos. See the Answer, page 3. According to
the examiner (id.):
Schlueter discloses polyurethanes (example II) made
from 50 wt.% prepolymer, 38 wt.% polyether polyol and
25 wt.% hardener comprising a polyol and less than 2
wt% of a charge control agent, and made at an NCO/OH
ratio of 0.96 and having a resistivity value of 3x10 .9
Schlueter differs from the claims by not showing a
charge control agent that becomes chemically
incorporated into the polyurethane molecule.
The examiner then relies on Chen and Ramos which are said to show
the claimed charge control agent. Id. Based on these teachings,
the examiner concludes (the Answer, page 4) that:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to use the
charge control agents of Chen and Ramos in the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007