Appeal No. 2005-0528 Page 5
Application No. 10/178,143
of ordinary skill in the art to have employed the foam stabilizers described by Dietrich for their
intended use, i.e., for the purpose of producing closed cells (Answer, p. 4).
Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to point to where Dietrich provides any
teaching regarding the closed cell content of their foams and that it would appear to one of
ordinary skill in the art that the disclosure of Dietrich is directed to foams having a relatively
high content of open cells, as foam stabilizers are taught to be optional at column 3, lines 5-7.
As further stated by Appellants, “[a]s those skilled in the art are aware, foam stabilizers will
prevent foam bubbles from collapsing during the hardening process and will therefore produce
closed cell foams.” (Brief, p. 5). According to Appellants, because Dietrich teaches that such
stabilizers are unnecessary, i.e., optional, one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably
conclude that Dietrich teaches a foam with a low closed cell content (Brief, p. 5).
The evidence as a whole supports the position of the Examiner, i.e., that one of ordinary
skill in the art of preparing polyurethane foams would have found it obvious to add stabilizer to
form foams with a high level of closed cells. First, the fact that those skilled in the art
understood that the purpose of foam stabilizers is for the production of closed-cell foams
supports the Examiner’s position rather than the Appellants’ position. One of ordinary skill in
the art would have added the stabilizer, an additive explicitly suggested as useful by Dietrich, for
its known and expected result. The fact that Dietrich does not mandate the inclusion of stabilizer
does not translate to a teaching that the foams of Dietrich are open-cell foams. In fact, Dietrich’s
only example includes stabilizer (Dietrich, Example 1 and, specifically, col. 5, ll. 38-39). This
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007