Appeal 2006-2516
Application 10/191,449
The sole ground of rejection is as follows:
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kumagai in view of Halpern.
We reverse.
OPINION
The Examiner relies on Kumagai for a disclosure of a releasing agent
(peel-treating agent) which is a reaction product of an ethylene/vinyl alcohol
copolymer and an alkylisocyanate having at least 8 carbon atoms. (Answer
3). The Examiner maintains that Kumagai’s use of xylene as the solvent in
the process of making the releasing agent would virtually eliminate the
bisurea by-product, since bisurea is a by-product produced in the presence of
water. Id. The Examiner relies on Halpern to illustrate that it is
conventional to use polyvinyl alcohol particles of size 80 mesh or smaller in
order to effect more uniform dispersion of the particles in the solvent and to
provide more surface area for reaction with the isocyanate. Id at 4. The
Examiner maintains that the result of using smaller particles would be a
higher yield of polyurethane and less bisurea by-product. Id.
Appellants argue that merely selecting an ethylene/vinyl alcohol
copolymer or polyvinyl alcohol starting material for production of the
polyurethane (without reference to any controlling of the particle size) is not
sufficient to ensure production of a product having the claimed low levels of
bisurea. (Br. 5). Appellants direct us to Example 1 and Comparative
Example 1 of the present application as evidence that a product produced
using Kumagai’s method would not inherently be the same as the presently
claimed peel-treating agent. According to Appellants, Example 1 and
Comparative Example 1 of the present Specification “are the definitive test
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007