Appeal No. 2003-0820
Application No. 09/789,989
using a gaseous co-blowing agent in which an isocyanate
component is mixed with a polyol component at ambient conditions
(i.e., 14.7 psia). (Answer, pages 3-4.) From these findings,
the examiner determined that each reference discloses every
limitation of the claimed invention. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The appellants, on the other hand, argue (appeal brief
filed Mar. 6, 2002, paper 8, pages 6-7):
The problem with the rejection is that neither
reference contains any discussion of the mechanics of
making foams or of how with gaseous blowing agents
high pressure impingement or mechanical mixing is used
to introduce the A-sides and B-sides, let alone any
discussion of how one might vary the same to overcome
certain problems or deficiencies. Thus, these
references neither anticipate appellants’ claimed
invention nor give motivation to one skilled in the
art for selecting the critical upper pressure range to
achieve improved water-blown foams when using gaseous
blowing agents.
The appellants’ arguments lack merit. Contrary to the
appellants’ allegation, the references do teach the “mechanics
of making foams.” (See, e.g., Valoppi at column 7, line 1 to
column 11, line 8; De Vos at column 6, lines 17-49.)
While the appellants contend that the references do not
teach “how with gaseous blowing agents high pressure impingement
or mechanical mixing is used to introduce the A-sides and B-
sides” [sic], appealed claim 1 merely recites: “a process for
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007