Appeal No. 2006-2369 Page 14
Application No. 10/169,618
source materials for the manufacture of urethanes. However, Sony ‘649 only discloses
generically cellulose, pullulan and hydrolysates of these polysaccharides as source
materials.” Appeal Brief, page 7. Thus, urge Appellants, “Sony ‘649 does not explicitly
teach, exemplify or suggest starch hydrolysates, much less starch hydrolysates of DE
ranging from 1 to 47, as source material or as the carbohydrate moiety of urethanes as
required by Applicants’ independent claims 1 and 9 . . . .” Id.; see also Reply Brief, at
pages 4 and 12. Appellants also point out that Sony ‘775 does not disclose a starch
hydrolysate as the carbohydrate moiety in its polysaccharide urethane derivatives.
Appeal Brief, pages 8-9; Reply Brief, page 9.
We do not agree that Sony ‘649 and ‘775 fail to disclose or suggest the use of a
starch hydrolysate having the claimed D.E. value. As discussed at length supra, in our
view Sony ‘649’s disclosure in paragraph [0007] of the suitability of hydrolysates
wherein “starch . . . will be mentioned” as the polysaccharide, and wherein suitable
hydrolysates contain “trisaccharide [or] . . . tetrasaccharide,” with hydrolysates of “seven
or more molecules condensed” being “especially . . . suitable,” suggests the use of a
starch hydrolysate of having a D.E. of 1 to 47.
Appellants further argue that “Sony ‘649 merely generically discloses aromatic
isocyanates (namely phenyl and substituted phenyl isocyanates) and cycloalkyl
isocyanates (namely cyclohexyl isocyanate) as source materials for the preparation of
urethanes (see Sony ‘649 [0009]), and discloses in particular as individualized and
materialized urethanes only phenyl and substituted phenyl urethanes . . . .” Brief,
page 8; see also Reply Brief, page 4. Thus, urge Appellants, “the urethanes disclosed
by Sony ‘649 are different from the ones according to the claimed invention in view of
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013