Appeal No. 2006-2677 Page 6
Application No. 10/346,099
(column 4, line 19 through column 5, line 60).” Examiner’s Answer, page 3. In
particular, the examiner notes that Holubka, at column 4, lines 21-26, discloses that the
“[p]referred chain-extendable, crosslink-able oligomers . . . are the reaction product of
(1) half-blocked diisocyanates with (2) certain preferred polyols. These (2) preferred
polyols comprise an epoxy-diol adduct, more specifically the reaction product of a
suitable diepoxide with diol.” Examiner’s Answer, page 10. In addition, the examiner
notes that the “[p]referred diols include ethylene glycol (1,2-ethane-diol) and
1,3-propanediol (column 5, lines 19-24).” Id. The examiner argues that “the resulting
polyol (epoxy-diol adduct) corresponds with the polyol set forth in claim 9. . . . This
polyol (epoxy-diol adduct) is then reacted with a half-blocked diisocyanate (half-blocked
polyisocyanate) to form a chain-extendable, crosslink-able oligomer,” which anticipates
claim 9. Examiner’s Answer, page 11.
Appellants argue that “Holubka discloses only reacting a polyol with a half-
blocked diisocyanate. Since a blocked isocyanate group is not an isocyanate group,
this is not a reaction of a polyol with a polyisocyanate. It is a reaction of a polyol with a
monoisocyanate. Further, a reaction of a polyol with a half-blocked diisocyanate does
not produce a thermoset as recited in present claim 9.” Appeal Brief, page 5.
We agree with Appellants that the examiner has not set forth a prima facie case
that Holubka anticipates claim 9. As discussed above, we agree with Appellants that a
half-blocked diisocyanate is not a polyisocyanate. In addition, the examiner has not set
forth sufficient basis to conclude that reacting a half-blocked diisocyanate with a polyol
would result in the same product as reacting an unblocked diisocyanate with a polyol.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013