Ex Parte Parks et al - Page 3

                Appeal No. 2006-2662                                                                          
                Application No. 09/928,764                                                                    

                      Thus, claim 24 is directed to an aqueous polyurethane dispersion                        
                prepared by forming a nonionic polyurethane prepolymer and then forming                       
                an aqueous dispersion of the prepolymer.  The nonionic polyurethane                           
                prepolymer is prepared from a formulation including methylene                                 
                diphenyldiisocyanate (MDI) having a P,P’-isomer content from 99 to 90                         
                percent.                                                                                      
                2.  ANTICIPATION                                                                              
                      Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 24, 25, and 27-41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                     
                § 102(e) as anticipated by Jakubowski 027.1  The Examiner argues that                         
                Jakubowski 027 describes aqueous polyurethane dispersions that read on                        
                Appellants’ claims, that the dispersion is produced “by dispersing a                          
                polyurethane prepolymer into water,” and that Jakubowski 027 discloses                        
                “the use of 4,4’-MDI and polyol reactants for producing the prepolymer.                       
                See abstract, columns 3-5, and examples.”  (Answer 4.)                                        
                      The Examiner argues that the claimed P,P’-isomer content is met                         
                “because the processing of 4,4’-MDI inherently yields an insignificant                        
                quantity of other isomers; as a result it is reasonable to conclude that the                  
                P,P’-isomer (in other words; 4,4’-isomer) content is slightly below 100                       
                percent and meets the appellants’ claimed percent values.”  (Id.)  In                         
                particular, the Examiner argues that Friedel2 and Fischer,3 which were cited                  
                by Appellants in their traversal of this rejection, “disclose that high purity                
                4,4’-MDI ha[s] a content of 4,4’-isomer of at least 98%. . . . Since these high               
                                                                                                             
                1 Jakubowski et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,959,027, issued September 28, 1999.                    
                2 Friedel et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,118,410, issued October 3, 1978.                          
                3 Fischer, Great Britain Patent Specification No. 1,263,439, published                        
                February 9, 1972.                                                                             
                                                      3                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013