Appeal No. 2002-1768
Application 09/538,786
d) a catalyst
e) a surfactant, or
f) processing aid.
The appealed claims, as represented by claim 4, are drawn to a process for the production
of a rigid polyurethane foam comprising at least reacting an aromatic polyisocyanate and a
polyether polyol prepared by addition polymerization of o-toluenediamine with an alkylene oxide
in the presence of a blowing agent comprising cyclopentane and water in an amount up to 1.0
pats by weight for every 100 parts by weight of polyol. The process can optionally involve other
materials. The product of the process is encompassed by appealed claim 9. According to
appellants, the rigid polyurethane foam products “can be utilized as thermal insulating material”
for a variety of applications (specification, page 1).
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Dietrich et al. (Dietrich) 5,840,781 Nov. 24, 1998
The examiner has rejected appealed claims 4 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dietrich.
Appellants state in their brief (page 3) that the appealed claims “stand or fall together.”
Thus, we decide this appeal based on appealed claim 4. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2002).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellants,
we refer to the examiner’s answer and to appellants’ brief for a complete exposition thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in
agreement with the supported position advanced by the examiner (answer, pages 3-4) that, prima
facie, one of ordinary skill in this art routinely working within the teachings of Dietrich would
have reasonably arrived at the claimed process.
We find that, when considered in light of the written description in the specification as
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this art, see, e.g., In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54
USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,
1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997), In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989), the plain language of appealed independent claim 4 requires a blowing agent comprising
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007