Appeal No. 2006-2677 Page 8
Application No. 10/346,099
make up for the deficiencies discussed above. Thus, we conclude that the examiner
has not set forth a prima facie case that claims 19, 20, 27, 29, and 39 would have been
obvious. We therefore reverse the obviousness rejections of these claims.
Other Issues
As noted above, we agree with Appellants that the examiner has not set forth a
prima facie case that Holubka anticipates claims 9, 21, or 31. However, the examiner
should consider whether the cured product of Holubka anticipates or renders obvious
claim 9 or any of the claims that depend from claim 9. In this regard, we note that
Appellants are using the term “thermoset” to read on a product that is “solidified without
the use of a catalyst or heating.” Specification, page 11. See also, the Reply Brief,
where Appellants argue that a “thermoset is a crosslinked polymer.”
The examiner should also consider whether Martz anticipates or renders obvious
any of the claims, for example, claim 21. Martz describes a urethane resin prepared by
reacting (A) an isocyanate-terminated prepolymer, which is the product of reacting an
organic polyisocyanate with an organic polyol, with (B) an unsaturated monomer
containing an isocyanate reactive group. Col. 1, lines 54-63. Martz broadly describes
the organic polyol and specifically includes epoxy polyols, which can be prepared by
reacting glycidyl ethers of polyphenols, such as diglycidyl ether of
2,2-bis(4-hydroxyphenol)propane, with polyphenols. Col. 3, lines 54-61; col. 5,
lines 42-45.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013