Appeal No. 1998-1125 Page 7
Application No. 08/410,247
§ 103 Rejection of claims 1-6 over Smits I
The examiner refers to column 6, lines 5-13 and example 1
of Smits I (‘579) for allegedly suggesting the use of pentanes
and perfluorocarbons as blowing agents in producing a cellular
polymer (answer, page 6). The examiner acknowledges that
Smits I does not disclose the use of a blowing agent having
components in the proportions as required by appellants’
claims. According to the examiner, "one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to optimize the relative
proportions of components to achieve an effective blowing
agent" (sentence bridging pages 6 and 7 of the answer).
We note that example 1 of Smits I refers to a foam
formulation that includes perfluorohexane and isopentane among
other foam components whereas appealed claims 1-6 all require
an azeotropic composition consisting essentially of
perfluorohexane and either n-pentane or 2-methyl butane in
specified amounts. Even if we could agree with the examiner
that it would have been obvious to optimize the relative
component proportions of perfluorohexane and isopentane (2-
methyl butane) in the example 1 formulation prior to addition
to the other foam forming materials, the examiner has not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007