Appeal 2007-1392
Application 10/640,895
OPINION
We determine the following factual findings from the record in this
appeal:
Smits’ comparative Examples 12, 16, and 19 describe the
manufacturing polyisocyanurate insulation foams wherein an isocyanate
compound is mixed with a polyol compound combined with a blowing agent
comprising both isopentane and n-pentane in the substantial absence of
cyclopentane. The blowing agent in these examples comprises isopentane in
a weight fraction that is greater than the weight fraction of the n-pentane.
Regarding the mixing (preblending) of components. Smits states:
[i]n making a polyurethane foam, the polyol(s),
polyisocyanate and other components are contacted,
thoroughly mixed and permitted to expand and cure into a
cellular polymer. The particular mixing apparatus is not
critical, and various types of mixing head and spray apparatus
are conveniently used. It is often convenient, but not
necessary, to preblend certain of the raw materials prior to
reacting the polyisocyanate and active hydrogen-containing
components. For example, it is often useful to blend the
the claims dependent thereon have been withdrawn. Appellant’s offer to
cancel claim 7 and the claims dependent thereon did not remove these
claims from appeal.
5 Appellant has not presented separate specific arguments for any claims on
appeal (See Br. generally). Appellant’s offer, Brief, page 2, to cancel claim
7 and the claims dependent therefrom does not withdraw these claims from
appeal. The subject matter of claim 7 is the broadest embodiment on appeal.
Therefore, we will limit our discussion to claim 7. Additionally, we note
that Appellant argues the conditions under which the blowing agent is
formed. However, this limitation does not occur in claim 7. Therefore, a
discussion of the conditions for formation of the blowing agent is not
necessary to our decision.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013