Appeal 2006-3071
Application 09/811,987
been reacted with OH moieties” (col. 2, ll. 12-19). Indeed, as pointed out by
the Examiner and contrary to Appellants’ position, we find that this person
would have reasonably read the disclosure at col. 2, l. 1, to col. 5, l. 4, to
pertain to individual first stage prepolymer molecules with an available
hydroxyl group and at least two unreacted isocyanate groups as specified for
addition product (A) in claim 1.
In this respect, we find that Bauriedel would have taught one of
ordinary skill in the art to obtain the first stage prepolymer by reacting
tolylene-2,4-diisocyanate or isophorone diisocyanate with, among others,
glycerol, trimethylol ethane or trimethylol propane which are trihydric
alcohols (col. 3, l. 54, to col. 4, l. 19). The combination of the two reactants
provide an OH:NCO ratio of .75:1 which falls within the ratio range
disclosed by Bauriedel (Bauriedel col. 2, ll. 12-19, and col. 4, l. 63, to col. 5,
l. 4), and provides first stage prepolymer molecules which has an average of
one hydroxyl group reactive with isocyanate groups and at least two free
isocyanate groups as taught by the reference. Indeed, on this record, it
reasonably appears that Appellants achieve the same result. This is because
the specific diisocyanates and trihydric alcohols disclosed in Bauriedel are
encompassed by appealed claims 4 and 5 and by appealed claim 9,
respectively, and the reaction taught by the reference is set forth in the
written description in Appellants’ specification (specification 6:37-45).
Thus, based on the substantial evidence in Bauriedel, we find that it
reasonably appears that the process of the reference is identical or
substantially identical to the claimed process encompassed by appealed
claim 1. Accordingly, the burden falls upon appellants to establish by
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007