Appeal No. 2004-0800
Application No. 08/362,547
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the same reference presently applied
by the examiner. The appealed claims are essentially the same as
those in the prior appeal with the exception that appealed
claim 9 now recites "one or more C1 to C6 hydrocarbons as the
sole blowing agents," whereas claim 9 of the prior appeal recited
"blowing agents consisting essentially of C1 to C6 hydrocarbons."
The present appeal also includes a Declaration of Wolfgang
Friederichs that was not of record in the prior appeal.
Appealed claims 3-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Volkert.
In accordance with the grouping of claims set forth at
page 3 of appellants' Brief, claims 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 stand or
fall together, as do claims 3 and 6.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability, as well as the declaration evidence relied
upon in support thereof. However, we are in complete agreement
with the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejection.
There is no dispute that Volkert, like appellants, discloses
a process for producing rigid polyurethane foams which includes
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007