Appeal No. 2002-2063
Application No. 09/635,093
error.6
The Furness reference suggests several non-high boiling
solvents and a mold release agent. When admixed, this composition
would meet the limitations of the claims at issue - that there be
a phenol resin component which is in a solvent, a polyisocyanate
component in a solvent, and a FAME component which would be
present in an amount of greater than the high-boiling aromatic
hydrocarbon solvent. The phenol resin OH groups are capable of
reacting with the polyisocyanate to form a two-component binder
system.
Appellants’ Point 6: The arguments involving aromatic
solvents.
Appellants urge that their invention relates to the reduction
of toxic fumes by reduction of high boiling aromatic hydrocarbons.
(Appeal Brief, page 22, lines 15-18). The problem with this
argument is that neither the instant claims nor Furness
require the presence of high-boiling aromatic hydrocarbons. The
list of solvents includes low-boiling solvents which are not high
boiling aromatic hydrocarbons. While we are aware of the
6 We also distance ourselves from the various statements of the examiner that
compositions comprising 97% low boiling aromatic hydrocarbon, 1% ester, 1%
resin, and 1% isocyanate would fall within the claim scope (Final Rejection,
page 3, limes 1-9). Although we agree with the appellants that the examiner is
incorrect in interpreting such dilute solutions as capable of being a binder,
the disclosure of Furness stands by itself as discussed above. We therefore
need not address Appellants’ point 5, at the Appeal Brief, page 20-page 22) or
points 7 and 8, Appeal Brief, pages 23-24, as we agree that the examiner is
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007