Ex Parte Klesczewski et al - Page 17

                Appeal 2007-1905                                                                                  
                Reissue Application 10/931,249                                                                    
                Patent 6,444,720 B1                                                                               
            1   content of a foam is taught by any of the cited references."  Reply Br. 2.  The                   
            2   second is that "[t]he selective picking and choosing from the teachings of the                    
            3   prior art upon which the Examiner's rejection is based does not … support a                       
            4   proper rejection of … [the] claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103."  Id.                                   
            5          Unanswered by Bayer's Appeal Brief and Reply Brief is how the                              
            6   claims on appeal limit the invention to the contribution Bayer claims to have                     
            7   been made.  Assuming arguendo that the claims were limited to the Bayer                           
            8   contribution, then further unanswered is why Heuvelsland and its assignee,                        
            9   as well as other members of the public, should be precluded from making                           
          10    rigid open-cell polyurethane foams using the polyols invented by                                  
          11    Heuvelsland.  On this record, one skilled in the art should not be deprived                       
          12    from using the Heuvelsland polyols to make polyurethane foams.  There is                          
          13    no "picking and choosing" involved in this case.  The prior art explicitly                        
          14    teaches the use of the Heuvelsland polyols to make polyurethane foams.                            
          15    There is no reason why one skilled in the art should not be allowed to do so                      
          16    even if there are many other polyols which also might be known for that                           
          17    same purpose.  The facts here are remarkably similar to those in Dillon.                          
          18    Dillon found that use of a particular compound in combination with diesel                         
          19    fuel resulted in less pollution when the diesel fuel was burned.  However, it                     
          20    turned out that it would have been obvious to use the same compound in                            
          21    diesel to prevent water entrained in the diesel from freezing in valves when                      
          22    diesel was transported via a pipe system in areas of the country having                           
          23    freezing temperatures during winter months.  There was no "teaching" in the                       
          24    Dillon prior art concerning reduction of pollution on burning just as we can                      
          25    assume that there may not be any teaching (in the prior art before us)                            


                                                       17                                                         

Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013