Appeal 2007-1021
Application 10/834,652
(c) a temperature-activated catalyst different from said
amine-based catalyst that is active at a temperature greater than the ambient
temperature.
The references set forth below are relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence of obviousness:
Hashimoto US 3,769,244 Oct. 30, 1973
Argyropoulos US 5,290,602 Mar. 1, 1994
Lee US 5,478,494 Dec. 26, 1995
Claims 1-3, 5-23, and 25-45 are rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lee in view of Argyropoulos, and claims 4, 24, and
37 are correspondingly rejected over these references and further in view of
Hashimoto.1
On page 10 of the Appeal Brief, Appellants characterize the issues on
appeal as follows:
The main issues in the present appeal revolve around 1.) the
Examiner's interpretation of Lee et al. as disclosing, teaching,
and suggesting an amine-based catalyst that is active at ambient
temperature and that initiates an exothermic reaction between
an isocyanate component and a resin component, as claimed in
each of the independent claims on the present invention, and 2.)
the erroneous position taken by the Examiner that the catalyst
disclosed in Lee et al. is the same catalyst as the catalyst
claimed in the present claims. Argyropoulos et al. was merely
included in the rejection to remedy the failure of Lee et al. to
disclose a composite article including a sytrenated polyester
layer and does not factor in to the issues on appeal.
1 The Appellants have not separately argued the dependent claims on
appeal. Accordingly, these claims will stand or fall with the independent
claims.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013