Appeal 2007-1392
Application 10/640,895
it was known to persons of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture
polyisocyanurate insulation foams wherein an isocyanate compound
containing stream is combined with a stream comprising a polyol and a
blowing agent preblend (See Soukup, cols. 9-10).
We determine that the Examiner has made explicit the analysis
supporting obviousness (Answer 3-6). We determine that the references
themselves present sufficient reasons for a person of ordinary skill in the art
to perform the method of the claimed invention. Therefore, we determine
that it would have been well within the ordinary skill in this art to perform
the method of producing polyisocyanurate insulation foams comprising
contacting an isocyanate compound containing stream with a stream
comprising a polyol and a blowing agent.
We note that Appellant argues the conditions under which the polyol
and blowing agent preblend is created (Br. 5, 7-8; Reply Br. 11). However,
Appellant’s arguments regarding the conditions for formation of the polyol
and blowing agent preblend are not limited to the scope of claim 7. We
further recognize that Appellant has not relied upon evidence of unexpected
results in rebuttal to the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we affirm
all grounds of rejection presented in this appeal.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013