Appeal No. 2007-3827
Application 08/713,905
Advisory Action mailed May 13, 2003. 35 U.S.C. §§ 6 and 134(a) (2002);
37 C.F.R. § 1.191(a) (2003).
We affirm the decision of the Primary Examiner.
Claims 1 and 3 illustrate Appellants’ invention of a process for the
production of an ether (poly)isocyanate and ether (poly)isocyanate products,
and are representative of the claims on appeal:
1. A process for the production of an ether (poly)isocyanate having a
hydrolyzable chlorine content less than or equal to 48 ppm from an ether
(poly)amine comprising reacting
a) an ether (poly)amine
with at least a stoichiometric amount (based on the number of primary amine
groups present in a)) of
b) phosgene or a compound which generates phosgene under the
reaction conditions
in the vapor phase at a temperature of from about 50 to about 800°C under
pressure.
3. An ether isocyanate selected from the group consisting of 2-(2-
isocyanato-propoxy)-1-propyl isocyanate, 1,1'-oxydi-2-propyl isocyanate,
2,2'-oxydi-1-propyl isocyanate and mixtures thereof having a hydrolyzable
chlorine content of no more than 43 ppm.
The Examiner relies on the evidence in these references:
Lehmann US 3,267,122 Aug. 16, 1966
Joulak US 5,391,683 Feb. 21, 1995
Biskup US 5,449,818 Sep. 12, 1995
Bischof US 5,516,935 May 14, 1996
Appellants request review of the following grounds of rejection all
advanced on appeal (Br. 3):
Claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as containing
subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as
to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013