Appeal No. 1998-1768
Application No. 08/403,826
the examiner has made the factual determination that Bocks
discloses "the use of tri and tetraethylene glycol and 1,6
hexandiol in the making of polyesters and polycarbonates which
meets the claimed limitation of the polyuremethane having
polyesterether claims [sic, chains] (col. 5, lines 45-50)"
(page 5 of Answer). Since appellants have not challenged this
finding of the examiner in either their principal or reply
briefs on appeal, we will accept the examiner's finding as
fact. In re Fox, 471 F.2d 1405, 1407,
176 USPQ 340, 341 (CCPA 1973); In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424,
425 n.3, 140 USPQ 235, 236 n.3 (CCPA 1964). Also, the foam of
Bocks' EXAMPLE 1 has a density of about 600 to 700 g/liter,
which range falls directly within the claimed density range of
400 to 700 g/liter. Consequently, although Bocks does not
describe the disclosed foam as spray-resistant, we find that,
since the foam of Bocks comprises the same components and has
the same density as the claimed foam, it is reasonable to
conclude that the foam of Bocks is also spray-resistant, at
least to the unspecified degree claimed by appellants.
Appellants have proffered no evidence which presents a
comparison between foams fairly taught by Bock and foams
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007