Appeal 2006-2270
Application 10/478,569
the Examiner has not persuasively detailed where all of the limitations of
any rejected claim (on a limitation by limitation basis), much less all of the
rejected claims, are described in Spitler.
For example, independent claim 1 requires a foam product that is
made by mixing (1) 160-310 parts by weight expandable microspheres
having an encapsulated blowing agent, such that the microspheres are
expanded during foam making, and having an unexpanded diameter less
than 50 microns; (2) 191 to 500 parts by weight isocyanate; (3) 75 to 125
parts by weight polyol; and (4) 14 to 201 parts by weight other ingredients
with less than 2 percent by weight of non-encapsulated blowing agents.
The Examiner refers us to the examples furnished in Spitler. However, as
argued by Appellants in the Briefs, the Examiner has not established that any
of the Examples of Spitler employed expandable microspheres, much less
expandable microspheres of a size and in amounts relative to all of the other
foam ingredients, such as the polyol, as called for in claim 1, or for any of
the other rejected claims. Nor has the Examiner established that any of the
examples employing previously expanded microspheres of Spitler
necessarily resulted in a product corresponding to that recited in any of the
product claims on appeal.
While Spitler does disclose expandable microspheres (see, e.g. col. 3,
ll 1-21 of Spitler) as noted by the Examiner, the Examiner has not
persuasively established that Spitler describes the use of unexpanded or not
fully expanded (expandable) microspheres of a size and in amounts as here
claimed, as opposed to fully expanded (now unexpandable) microspheres in
differing amounts in the mixture of ingredients from which the foam is
prepared. In this regard, we further note that the Examiner’s assertions of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007