Appeal No. 2004-1995
Application No. 10/018,332
Here, the examiner has not demonstrated that each of the prior
art references relied upon clearly and unequivocally teaches a
flexible polyurethane foam produced from reacting a polyisocyanate
with a particular polyether polyol having, inter alia, a terminal
propylene oxide block and at least one ethylene oxide/propylene
oxide mixed block, produced by alkoxylation in the presence of a
double metal cyanide catalyst. Specifically, as correctly argued
by the appellants (Brief, pages 4-8 and Reply Brief, pages 2-3),
the examiner has not evinced that the polyether polyols having at
least one ethylene oxide/propylene oxide mixed block used in the
applied prior art references in producing polyurethane foams also
have a terminal propylene oxide block. The appellants correctly
explain (Brief, page 5) that:
As used in Appellants’ claims, “terminal propylene oxide
block” has it plain meaning, i.e., a terminal block
derived from propylene oxide. It does not include
ethylene oxide because inclusion of ethylene oxide would
result in a mixed block terminal group.
The examiner does not identify the specific teachings in the
applied prior art references explicitly or inherently describing
the claimed terminal propylene oxide block. See the Answer in its
entirety. Thus, we concur with the appellants that the examiner
has not established a prima facie case of anticipation within the
meaning of Section 102. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007