Appeal 2007-1386
Application 10/439,922
4) Dieterich discloses that “[w]here carboxylate and/or sulphonate
groups are present, it may be advisable to add small quantities of an acid
(for example, from 0.05 to 0.8% by weight, based on the quantity of
synthesis component (d)), for example, phosphoric acid, for
deactivation” (col. 3, l. 67 - col. 4, l. 3).
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner found that Lorenz Example 1 discloses the invention as
claimed with the exception of a reaction retarder (Answer 3). The Examiner
found that Dieterich discloses the use of a phosphoric acid retarder to
deactivate anionic groups during the reaction of components used in forming
water soluble polyurethane (Answer 3). The Examiner concluded that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to use a reaction retarder in Lorenz Example 1 to deactivate the
anionic groups as taught by Dieterich (Answer 4).
Appellants argue that Lorenz teaches away from the present invention,
because Lorenz indicates a preference for isocyanate prepolymers which do
not contain ionic groups (Br. 12). We do not find this argument persuasive,
because it fails to address the Examiner’s finding that Lorenz Example 1
does disclose polyurethane prepolymers comprising pendent anionic
moieties (Answer 3). See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65, 23 USPQ2d
1780, 1782-83 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (A reference stands for all of the specific
teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in this art
would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom.); In re Bozek,
416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)(A reference
disclosure must be evaluated for all that it fairly teaches and not only for
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013