September 1,1970
Dear Sirs: Re: Final Rejection
Application No.42,183
Filed February 6,1969
Henry C. Geen & Warren A. Rice
RETICULATED POLYMERIC PRODUCT
I have reviewed the prosecution of this application in view
of applicant's response of February 5, 1970 to the Final Action of
November 7,1969. That review has led me to the conclusion that
the subject matter of claims 3, 5 and 7 should be allowed. The
evidence supplied by the applicant, and in particular the affidavit
of Henry C. Geen have satisfied me that heat-reticulated polyurethane
foams where the cellular material is an iso-cyanate-derived polymeric
cellular material are patentably different from similar foams where
reticulation has been brought about by other means.
I note, however that all of the evidence supplied is restric-
ted to iso-cyanate derived polyurethanes, and am in no way satisfied
that all heat reticulated polymeric material is patentably different
from prior art reticulated polymeric material. While there is a
broad reference in the disclosure to other polymers, the whole
burden of the disclosure, of the example, and in particular of the
evidence and samples provided in the applicants arguments are
directed to iso-cyanate derived polyurethanes. I must conclude
that there is inadequate disclosure to warrant the allowance of
claims 1, 2, 4 and 6.
Consequently I am referring the application back to the examiner
for further prosecution, and am directing him to withdraw his objec-
tions to the subject mater of claims 3, 5 and 7.
Yours truly,
A,M, Laidlaw,
Commissioner.
Messrs. Alex. E. MacRae & Co.,
56 Sparks Street,
Ottawa 4, Ontario.