Appeal No. 2005-0528 Page 4
Application No. 10/178,143
OPINION
Appellants do not dispute that Dietrich suggests reacting a polyol composition meeting
the requirements of claim 6 with at least one isocyanate in the presence of water as further
required by claim 6. That Dietrich teaches or suggests these aspects of the claimed invention is
clear from the disclosure of Dietrich. Dietrich describes a polyol composition including an
aromatic amine-initiated polyether polyol (compare Dietrich, col. 1, ll. 40-43 with specification,
p. 5, ll. 3-30) in an amount within the claimed range (Dietrich, col. 1, ll. 51-53) in combination
with a sucrose polyether polyol (Dietrich, col. 1, ll. 54-57) which would have a functionality
greater than or equal to 2.5 and, optionally, further in combination with a polyester polyol
(Dietrich, col. 1, ll. 57-59). Example 1 illustrates a polyol composition containing all three
polyol components in concentrations within the claimed ranges. Dietrich further describes
reacting the polyol composition with polyisocyanates, optionally in the presence of water, and
further blowing agents known per se as well as conventional auxiliaries and additives in order to
produce rigid polyurethane foams (Dietrich, col. 2, ll. 1-8). Use of water as an additional
blowing agent is also disclosed (Dietrich, col. 3, ll. 3-4).
What Dietrich does not discuss is the cell structure of the resulting foam. This is
acknowledged by the Examiner (Answer, p. 4). The Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is
based on the fact that Dietrich describes including foam stabilizers (Answer, p. 4). The
Examiner finds that foam stabilizers were known by those of ordinary skill in the art to result in
closed cells. It follows then, according to the Examiner, that it would have been obvious to one
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007