Appeal No. 2005-0528 Page 7
Application No. 10/178,143
closed-cell foam in order to obtain the well known properties of that type of foam, properties
which include increased insulating value.
Appellants also argue that the disclosure of Dietrich is directed to foams produced using
volatile alkane and fluorinated alkane blowing agents and that water is mentioned only as an
additional blowing agent (Reply Brief, p. 3). Appellants do not explain how this fact renders the
claims non-obvious. If Appellants believe that the claim excludes the presence of alkane and
fluroinated alkane blowing agents, we cannot agree. Reading the claim as broadly as is
reasonable and consistent with the specification, In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44
USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997), we determine that claim 6 does not exclude the presence
of blowing agents such as the alkanes and fluoroalkanes of Dietrich. The claim uses the
transitional phrase “comprising” which indicates that other components can be included in the
composition. Claim 6 also indicates that, optionally, at least one additive or auxiliary agent can
be present (claim 6, part (5)) and that this language includes auxiliary blowing agents is evident
from the specification (specification, p. 8, ll. 13-16). Nor can we say that the preamble of the
claim excludes other blowing agents, particularly in view of the fact that, according to the
specification, other blowing agents can be included. Based on the above claim interpretation, we
cannot agree with Appellants that the disclosure in Dietrich of using water as an additional
blowing agent renders the claim non-obvious.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no arguments upon objective evidence of
non-obviousness such as unexpected results. We conclude that the Examiner has established a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007