Appeal No. 1998-1125 Page 8
Application No. 08/410,247
carried the burden of establishing that such optimization
would have resulted in the herein claimed azeotropic
formulation. In this regard, the examiner has not established
that Smits I suggests optimization to achieve such an
azeotropic mixture. Accordingly, we shall not sustain this
rejection.
§ 102 Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 over Smits II
The examiner (answer, page 5) has found that Smits II
(Smits ‘759) exemplifies the use of a mixture of n-pentane and
perfluorohexane in weight percent amounts of 35 and 65,
respectively as a blowing agent in sample 4.4 of Example 4.
Appellants’ representative claim 1 is inclusive of such a
composition by calling for from about 26 to about 72% by
weight of perfluorohexane and from about 28 to about 53% by
weight of n-pentane as one optional azeotropic mixture. As
such, we agree with the examiner that Smits II anticipates,
prima facie, the composition required by representative claim
1.
Of course, the blowing agent mixture that was
purposefully made in example 4.4 of Smits II would be
azeotropic as defined by appellants in their specification,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007