Appeal 2006-2775
Application 10/606,399
claims (Answer 3-4). Appellants acknowledge that Adkins, like the
presently claimed invention, discloses the preparation of polyisocyanates of
the diphenylmethane series (Br. 5). Appellants argue that the present
invention requires the addition of an alcohol to the process of preparing the
polyamides before the phase separation of step c) (Br. 5). Appellants argue
that Adkins does not disclose or suggest adding an alcohol during the
preparation of the polyamides (Br. 5).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Adkins discloses that an
alcohol is necessary to quench the mixture when using a highly reactive
reducing agent. Suitable alcohols include methanol. See col. 2, ll. 21 to 29.
Appellants acknowledge this disclosure on page 6 of the Brief. The
Examiner has determined that Adkins suggests the addition of the methanol
after neutralization and before phase separation (Answer 3-4). Appellants
have not refuted the Examiner’s position in the Briefs.
Appellants argue that Adkins does not disclose that methanol could be
effective when it is added to the polyamines in reducing the color value of
the resulting polyisocyanate (Br. 6). This argument is not persuasive
because it is not limited to the scope of the claimed invention. That is, the
invention disclosed by the independent claims, 1 and 11, do not exclude the
use of reactive reducing agents in combination with methanol.3
3 The independent claims employ the transitional phrase “comprising.” This
transitional phrase is entitled to its customary usage in claim interpretation,
thus opening the claimed method to include unspecified additional steps and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007