Appeal 2007-2906
Application 10/295,315
Takeyasu explains that these two components may be used by themselves or
in further combination with other foaming agents.11
Takeyasu's Table 2 shows four foaming compositions within the
scope of claim 6 (H, I, J, and M) and three outside the scope of claim 6 (K,
L, and N). Table 3 shows results using compositions H-J and M, all of
which are "good". Table 4 shows results using compositions K, L, and N,
which the table describes as the "comparative examples". All of the
comparative examples are "no good" in at least one respect.12
Differences between the prior art and the claim
Although the component ranges are similar, they are not identical.
Takeyasu's ranges are broader: by 4 parts at the outsides of the ranges and
10 parts in the middle. Thus, while in claim 6 the amount of HFC-134a can
never exceed the amount of HFC-245fa, at one extreme of Takeyasu's ranges
there can be 20 parts more HFC-134a than HFC-245fa.
Bayer urges other differences. For instance, Bayer argues Takeyasu
does not teach "that the blowing agent mixture be used in quantities from 5
to 20 wt% base on the total foam-forming mixture."13 Bayer does not
identify the source of this limitation. We discern no such limitation in
claim 6.
Bayer also argues that Takeyasu does not teach an "advantageous k-
factor" or "a k-factor which [is] ±5% of the k-factor produced solely with
11 Takeyasu 2:47-50.
12 Takeyasu 7:20-8:64. For comparison, the blowing agents in both of
Bayer's comparative examples use either HFC-134a alone or HFC-245fa
alone and are thus outside Takeyasu's preferred ranges. See Specification
(Spec.) 14, Table 1, columns 1 and 4.
13 Br. 3.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013