Appeal No. 1998-3187
Application No. 08/130,517
sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 25-28 and 32 for
essentially those reasons expressed by the examiner. However, we
will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 19-21 and
29-31. Our reasoning follows.
Hager, like appellants, discloses flexible polyurethane
foams formed from polymer polyol compositions. Appellants do
not dispute the examiner's factual determination that Hager
discloses claimed reactants (a) and (c), so-called high
functionality polyol and subsidiary polyether polyol high in
poly(oxyethylene) content, respectively. It is appellants'
contention that Hager does not teach claimed reactant (b), a
styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer dispersed in the continuous phase
of a triol polyol (claim 19), or a polymer triol polyol having a
molecular weight of about 3,000-6,500 (claim 25). In particular,
appellants submit at page 11 of the principal brief (filed
October 23, 1996) that "the Examiner's allegation that Hager
teaches the use of Appellants' component (b) polymer triol polyol
is fundamentally incorrect" (paragraph two). Appellants further
maintain that "Hager does not disclose or teach obtaining a
polyol composition ultimately comprising three different polyol
composition components" (page 16 of principal brief, penultimate
paragraph).
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007