Appeal 2007-0106
Application 10/453,932
condensation reaction between the components before the final curing, and
the present claims on appeal do not require a full curing of the composition
before application to the glass fibers. Indeed, the claims specifically call for
curing the composition after application to the fibers. Hence, we perceive
no meaningful distinction between Appellants' formation of an esterification
reaction adduct that is then applied to the fibers and Arkens' partial reaction
of the very same components before a final cure after application. We agree
with the Examiner that it is reasonable to conclude that the initial heating or
"B-staging" performed by Arkens results in the formation of some
esterification adduct in the composition that is subsequently applied to the
glass fibers. Appellants have not demonstrated otherwise on this record.
Also, in our view, it would have been a mater of obvious, routine
experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the specific
degree of partial reaction via drying of the composition before application to
the fibers to optimize handling, contingent upon the specific composition
selected for application.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "[n]othing in
Arkens suggests that both the polyacid and polyol should be replaced in the
binder by the product (adduct) of an esterification reaction" (page 5 of Brief,
second para.). As explained above, Arkens, in fact, suggests a partial
reaction before application to the fibers which would necessarily form some
adduct. The Examiner correctly points out that Arkens discloses that "[t]he
polyacid must be sufficiently nonvolatile that it will substantially remain
available for reaction with the polyol in the composition during heating and
curing and operations" (col. 3, ll. 46-49, emphases added). It is reasonable to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013