Appeal No 2007-0310
Application No 10/260,498
3. OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 10-13 AND 67-72
Claims 10-13 and 67-72 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Herold in view of Nagata or Doerge. The Examiner argues
that Herold teaches steps a-d of claim 10 except that it does not “disclose the
specific concentration of the basic catalyst, the reaction temperature and that
no precipitate is formed by reaction of the acid with the basic catalyst.”
(Answer 4.) In particular, the Examiner argues that Herold teaches using a
mineral acid to neutralize the basic catalyst. (Answer 5.)
The Examiner relies on Doerge as teaching “addition of a hydroxy-
carboxylic acid, such as lactic acid, to a polyether polyol for neutralization
of the alkaline catalyst contained therein without formation of a precipitate”
and that the “polyether polyol to be treated contains the alkaline catalyst in
amounts of about 0.01 to 1 percent by weight based on weight of polyether
polyol.” (Answer 4.) The Examiner concludes that the “skilled artisan
would have been motivated to substitute the hydroxy-carboxylic acid, such
as lactic acid, as taught by Doerge, for the mineral acid of Herold et al.,
since Doerge teaches that such a substitution would allow one to neutralize
the basic catalyst without forming a precipitate” and teaches the “advantages
of not forming a precipitate.” (Answer 4-5.)
The Examiner relies on Nagata for its teaching that “a polyurethane
foam prepared from a polyether polyol, which has been neutralized with
dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid.” (Answer 5.) The Examiner argues that “the
salt produced dissolves in the polyether polyol (see page 3 of Nagata et al.).
See also [Nagata] example 1 wherein after neutralization with
dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid a clear polyether polyol is obtained whereas in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013