Appeal No. 2005-0528 Page 10
Application No. 10/178,143
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring
I concur with the majority's disposition of the Examiner's stated § 103 rejection of the
appealed claims before us. I write separately because it is my opinion that the rejection of claims
6-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Dietrich, U.S. Patent 5,840,781, should be affirmed for
reasons that differ from the majority.
I agree with the cogent analysis of my colleagues that it would have been obvious to add
a stabilizer to the process of Dietrich. However, I do not believe that the addition of a stabilizer
is necessary to render the claimed subject matter unpatentable. I will limit my discussion to
claim 6.1
The subject matter of claim 6 is directed to a process for preparing a low density water-
blown rigid polyurethane foam. Claim 6 is reproduced below:
6. A process for preparing a low density water-blown rigid polyurethane foam
comprising reacting:
(1) a polyol composition comprising:
1.) at least 30% by weight, based on the total weight of the polyol
composition, of at least one aromatic amine-initiated polyether
polyol; and
2.) at least one of the following:
(I) up to 50% by weight, based on the total weight of the polyol
composition of a polyether polyol having a functionality greater than
or equal to 2.5 which is different from the polyether polyol of 1.);
and
(ii) up to 70% by weight, based on the total weight of the polyol
composition, of a polyester polyol;
1 Claim 6 has been selected by the majority as representative of the rejected claims.
(Slip op. p. 3).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007