Appeal No. 1998-1125 Page 9
Application No. 08/410,247
page 12, lines 12-26. Hence, appellants’ argument to the
extent it is based on the premise that Smits II does not
disclose an azeotropic mixture in the component amounts
covered by representative appealed claim 1 (brief, page 6) is
simply not convincing. Moreover, we do not agree with
appellants’ interpretation of Smits II as not describing that
a mixture of the blowing agent components is prepared for use
as the blowing agent mixture or that the blowing agent mixture
described in example 4.4 of Smits II is accidental (brief,
pages 7-9). Smits II specifically describes the blowing agent
mixture as purposefully containing first and second components
(column 2, line 52-60) and hence the example 4.4 mixture would
have clearly conveyed to one of ordinary skill that such a two
component mixture was being described as the blowing agent
mixture. Appellants’ reference to the intent of Smits II
(reply brief, pages 4-6) is clearly not germane to the
propriety of the examiner’s rejection to the extent that
rejection is based on the anticipatory disclosure in example
4.4. Indeed, as acknowledged by appellants (reply brief, page
6, last sentence), that example happens to be within the scope
of the rejected appealed claims. Concerning this matter, it
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007