Appeal No. 1998-3187
Application No. 08/130,517
We do not subscribe to appellants' argument since it is
abundantly clear to us that the flexible polyurethane foam of
Hager is prepared by reacting, like appellants, three separate
components, one of which may be a styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer
dispersed in the continuous phase of a polyol. Hager expressly
discloses that the compositions used to make the polyurethane
foams "are comprised of a high functionality polyol, a subsidiary
polyol high in poly(oxyethylene) content and a stably dispersed
polymer" (column 1, lines 16-18). The third component is
described as a stable dispersion in one or more of the disclosed
polyols of a standard vinyl polymer or copolymer, preferably
copolymers of acrylonitrile and styrene (see column 5, lines 26
et seq. and column 7, lines 3-5). Appellants have not advanced
any argument that the polyol of claimed component (b) is any
different than the polyol of Hager in which the vinyl polymer or
copolymer is dispersed. Accordingly, we will sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 25-28 and 32, which do not recite
any value for Indentation Force Deflection (IFD) or isocyanate
index. We are mindful of appellants' argument that the claim
language "consists essentially of" excludes the diethanolamine
(DEOA) of Hager (Hager employs DEOA as a chain extender).
However, as noted by the examiner, Hager teaches that the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007