Appeal No. 2002-2063
Application No. 09/635,093
Appellants’ Point 11: Furness’s Teaching of non-high boiling
aromatic solvents.
The appellants urge that Furness teaches a three-component
system with a high-boiling non-polar aromatic solvent for the
polyisocyanate component, and urges that mold release agents are
not solvents. The appellants also urge that the examiner has
“trivialized” the invention and that it has been published in
trade journals and a premium paid therefor. (Appeal Brief, page
26).
We note that this argument again addresses claim scope and
interpretation of the Furness reference. We reiterate that the
appellants have not shown the additional components of Furness to
be excluded by the consisting essentially of language of claim 12.
Further, as noted on pages 15-16 of this decision, the use of
other suggested solvents in Furness accomplish this claimed
result. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by this argument.
The appellants are urging us to consider the evidence of
secondary considerations, the commercial success and praise in
respected trade journals, and the premium pricing of the
commercial product. While we are impressed by the appellants’
counsel’s ardor in urging these results, we note that those
results were initially urged in the prosecution of US 6,136,888
with successful results.
25
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007