Appeal No. 2006-2662
Application No. 09/928,764
diphenylmethane, col. 5, ll. 20-25 as well as col. 7, ll. 27-30. See, for
instance, lines 19-29 of column 5 wherein a 50:50 mixture of 4,4’ and 2,4’
isomer is disclosed.” (Br. 5-6.)
We conclude that the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case
that Jakubowski 027 anticipates claim 24. As noted by Appellants,
Jakubowski 027 does not exemplify an aqueous dispersion formed from
MDI having a P,P’-isomer content of 90 to 99 percent. The examples
included in Jakubowski 027 only describe latex formed from a 50:50
mixture of the 4,4’ and 2,4’-isomers (cols. 7-8).
In addition, although Jakubowski 027 identifies 4,4’-MDI as a
preferred diisocyanate (col. 2, l. 63, to col. 3, l. 12), we conclude that the
Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case that 4,4’-MDI inherently
contains the P,P’-isomer content recited in claim 24. The Examiner has
provided no evidence to support his position that the 4,4’-MDI taught by
Jakubowski 027 would have inherently contained only 90-99% 4,4’-MDI.
Friedel and Fischer describe techniques for achieving a 4,4’-MDI
content of more than 99% (Friedel, col. 4, ll. 23-26; Fischer, p. 3, ll. 73-78).
Both of these references were published more than 20 years before the
effective filing date of the present application. Given that ways to achieve a
4,4’-MDI content of more than 99% were known well before the time of the
present invention, we do not agree that these references support the
Examiner’s position that the 4,4’-MDI disclosed by Jakubowski 027 would
have inherently contained between 1% and 10% impurities, and therefore
meet the claim limitation of 90-99% P,P’-isomer content.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013