Appeal 2007-2906
Application 10/295,315
The rejection
The examiner has rejected all claims as having been obvious to those
having ordinary skill in the art in view of the Takeyasu patent.6 In analyzing
obviousness, the scope and content of the prior art must be determined, the
differences between the prior art and the claims ascertained, and the ordinary
level of skill in the art resolved. Objective evidence of the circumstances
surrounding the origin of the claimed subject matter (so-called secondary
considerations) may also be relevant. Such secondary considerations guard
against the employment of impermissible hindsight.7
Scope and content of the prior art
The Takeyasu patent is directed to methods of producing a foamed
synthetic resin using a specific foaming agent.8 The invention is
characterized by the use of HFC-245fa and HFC-134a in combination.9
Takeyasu's weight percentage of HFC-134a and HFC-245fa is preferably 1-
80 and 20-99, respectively, and more preferably 1-60 and 40-99,
respectively.10 There is substantial overlap in the ranges claimed:
in parts by Takeyasu
weight Claim 6 more preferred
HFC-134a 5-50 1-60
HFC-245fa 50-95 40-99
6 Hiromitsu Takeyasu et al., Method for producing foamed synthetic resin,
U.S. Patent 6,043,291 (issued 28 March 2000) (Takeyasu).
7 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 36 (1966), cited with approval
in KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
8 Takeyasu 1:4-7.
9 Takeyasu 2:24-25.
10 Takeyasu 2:41-42.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013