Appeal 2006-3071
Application 09/811,987
The Examiner has rejected appealed claims 1, 2, and 4 through 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Bauriedel (Answer 3-6).
Appellants argue the claims as a group with respect to the ground of
rejection under each statutory provision (Br. 10 and 13). Thus, we decide
this appeal based on appealed claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).
We affirm the ground of rejection under § 103(a) and reverse the
ground of rejection under § 102(b). Accordingly, the decision of the
Examiner is affirmed.
We refer to the Answer and to the Brief for a complete exposition of
the positions advanced by the Examiner and Appellants.
OPINION
The issues in this appeal involve the teachings and inferences that one
of ordinary skill in this art would have found in Bauriedel with respect to the
preparation of the “first stage prepolymer” in the process of preparing
polyisocyanates therein, and thus, whether the reference anticipates or would
have rendered obvious the claimed process encompassed by appealed claim
1 which specifies “addition product (A)” as the first stage in a process of
preparing the same kind of compounds. We determine that Claim 1 requires
reacting, among others, a diisocyanate with a compound having at least three
groups which react with an isocyanate group to form “addition product (A)
[that] contains an average of only one group which is reactive toward
isocyanate, and at least two free isocyanate groups.”
The Examiner submits that the disclosure in the abstract and at
cols. 2-5, particularly col. 3, l. 45, and col. 5, l. 4, would have taught reacting
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007