Appeal No. 2006-1958 3
Application No. 10/268,208
The examiner relies upon the following single prior art reference:
Neuhaus et al. (Neuhaus) 5,028,684 July 2, 1991
All of the appealed claims stand rejected under 35 USC § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Neuhaus and, alternatively, under 35 USC § 103(a) as being obvious from
Neuhaus.
We have carefully considered the record in this case in light of the positions taken
by the examiner and by the appellants. Having done so, we conclude that the Neuhaus
reference is not anticipatory but does support a prima facie case of obviousness.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC § 102 is reversed, and the rejection under 35
USC § 103 is affirmed.
The basis for our decision is as follows:
The claimed process involves a reaction among six recited components:
(a) – (f). Of those components, (d) – (f) are listed as optional. Accordingly, we shall
focus on components (a) – (c).
Neuhaus also relates to a process for producing molded PU articles.
There is no dispute that appellants’ component (a), a diisocyanate and/or
polyisocyanate, is identical to component (a) of the Neuhaus formulation.
Component (b) of the claims is a polyether polyol which corresponds to
Neuhaus’ component (b). The polyether polyol concentration range disclosed by
Neuhaus (at least 10% by weight) encompasses the range set forth in instant claim 1.
The molecular weight range set forth in Neuhaus (500-999) for the polyether polyol is
embraced by the corresponding molecular weight range set forth in claim 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007