Appeal 2007-1392
Application 10/640,895
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Smits or Imperial Chemical in combination with Soukup.
(Answer 3-5).
Appellant contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art with the
knowledge of Smits and Imperial Chemical would not have chosen to
combine a comparative example (which is ostensibly inferior) with another
prior art reference. (Br. 5). Appellant further contends that the Examiner
has failed to explain where the cited prior art teaches or suggests that the
procedure should be performed at the conditions set forth in the claims
(Br. 5).
Appellant contends that the prior art fails to provide a person of
ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success. Appellant
maintains that the combination has been made by using impermissible
hindsight (Br. 4).
Appellant contends Smits requires an acyclic alkane as part of the
blowing agent mixture and provides evidence that polyurethane foam
prepared according to Smits’ invention are superior (Br. 4).
Appellant contends that Imperial Chemical requires a substantial
excess of isopentane when mixtures of n-pentane and isopentane are
employed as a blowing agent (Br. 4).
The Examiner contends that that Smits’ comparative Examples 12, 16,
and 19 describe the claimed invention (Answer 3).
The Examiner asserts that Imperial Chemical comparative Example 2
(Table 4) describes the claimed invention (Answer 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013