Appeal 2007-1392
Application 10/640,895
The Imperial Chemical reference discloses that “[t]he ‘A side’ of the
system contained the polyisocyanate while the ‘B side’ of the systems
contained all other ingredients. The B side components were prepared by
mixing all of the [other] components together at room temperature in a high
speed mixer” (Imperial Chemical 12).
Accordingly, the issues presented on the record in this appeal are as
follows: (1) do Smits and Imperial Chemical each disclose, teach, or suggest
methods for producing polyisocyanurate insulation foams?; (2) has the
Examiner presented an explicit analysis of the reasons for manufacturing
polyisocyanurate insulation foams wherein stream A comprises the
isocyanate compound and stream B comprises a polyol and a blowing
agent?; and (3) do the applied prior art references disclose, teach, or suggest
a blowing agent that includes both isopentane and n-pentane in the
substantial absence of cyclopentane?
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence, which prima facie case has
not been adequately rebutted by Appellant’s arguments. Therefore, we
AFFIRM the rejection presented in this appeal essentially for the reasons
stated in the Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below. 4 5
4 Appellant’s opposition to the utilization of claim 7 for determination of the
issues on appeal has been noted. (See Reply Br. 12). Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.31(c) Appellant had the right to select the claims under rejection to
contest on appeal. Appellant, at the time of filing the appeal, elected to
include claim 7 and the claims dependent thereon in the appeal from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection. (See Br. 2). Appellant failed to exercise his
authority pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iii) to indicate that claim 7 and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013