Appeal 2007-1692
Application 10/415,009
2 illustrates a component A formulation containing TDI and
MDI diisocyanates (col. 17, l. 62).
2. Bolte is silent with respect to the presence of polyisocyanate
monomers in the polyurethane prepolymer.
3. Schnabel describes a process of removing unreacted
diisocyanate monomer from polyurethane prepolymers (Title)
by co-distilling (col. 3, ll. 26-49). The resulting prepolymer
may be used to form adhesives (col. 3, ll. 49-53).
4. According to Schnabel, unreacted diisocyanate in the
prepolymer reaction product is undesirable because they create
vapors and diisocyanate vapors are believed to be toxic to
humans (col. 1, ll. 14-21)
C. Principles of Law
A claimed invention is unpatentable if the differences between it and
the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
in the pertinent art. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)(2000); Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 13-14, 148 USPQ 459, 465 (1966). Factors to consider in
determining obviousness include “‘the scope and content of the prior art,’”
“‘the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue,’” and “‘the
level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.’” Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219,
226, 189 USPQ 257, 260 (1976) (quoting Graham, 383 U.S. at 17, 148
USPQ at 466). In making the determination of obviousness, evidence
related to secondary indicia of non-obviousness like “commercial success,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013