Appeal No. 2006-1676
Application No. 10/384,882
examples in their specification, which compare their invention
with the prior art Mannich polyol formed foams, as evidence of
intended claim scope for the claimed b2 reaction product. (Reply
Brief at page 2).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and evidence that
their specification includes a clear disclaimer of using
alkoxylated Mannich bases such that the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification would not
encompass prior art using such alkoxylated Mannich bases. The
“Summary of the Invention” section of Appellants’ specification
states that non-alkoxylated Mannich bases are used by Appellants
to produce foams having more favorable flame propagation
properties than foams produced using Mannich polyols (i.e.,
alkoxylated Mannich bases). (Specification at page 3, lines 11-
15). Also, the specification states that using non-alkoxylated
Mannich bases yield better compatibility with the blowing agent,
than do alkoxylated Mannich bases. (Specification at page 3,
lines 17-19). Moreover, Appellants’ comparative examples in the
table on page 9 of the specification demonstrate that using non-
alkoxylated Mannich bases (Examples 1-4) yield compositions with
completely dissolved blowing agent and better flame propagation
properties, than a composition made with an alkoxylated Mannich
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007