Appeal No. 2002-2063
Application No. 09/635,093
system, when admixed, contains a homogeneous blend of all the
components. Therefore, it matters not which component appellants
assert is intended for which solvent, a mixture of all will meet
the claim limitations.
Appellants also contend that Furness fails to disclose the
use of a mold release agent as solvent, much less sole solvent,
for both the phenolic resin and the polyisocyanate. (Appeal
Brief, page 9, lines 13-24). We note that claim 12 is not
restricted to the use of a mold release agent as a sole solvent.
The claim language, to which our review is confined, only requires
more fatty acid methyl ester than high boiling aromatic
hydrocarbon in solvent (b) (ii). It does not require that fatty
acid methyl ester be the majority of the solvent, or even that
high boiling aromatic hydrocarbon be present.
Reading the claim as broadly as is reasonable, we agree with
the examiner that, reading the suggested list of solvents supplied
by Furness, when one of ordinary skill in the art selects a low-
boiling hydrocarbon solvent for the polyisocyanate solvent of
Furness, no (or minute amounts of) fatty acid methyl ester would
be required. We consequently are not persuaded by this argument.
The appellants also urge that there is no teaching to select
methyl monoesters of one or more fatty acids with a carbon chain
of twelve or more carbon atoms from among the drying oils listed
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007