Appeal 2007-3396
Application 111008,592
be reacted together, with the remaining ingredients distributed between these
two components or added as yet another component.27 If water is used,
Skowronski teaches that it is convenient to add it with the polyo1.28
Bayer appears to question whether Skowronski is even analogous art.
Bayer argues that those in the art would not regard Skowronski's teachings
relating to closed-cell rigid foams to apply to Horn's and its own integral-
skin foams. It is not clear from the argument why this should necessarily be
true. No evidence is provided to support the argument. We cannot accept
bare argument as fact.29 Instead, we find compelling Horn's belief that
closed-cell rigid foams were pertinent in view of Horn's disclosure of such a
foam using zeolites in both the polyol and polylsocyanate components as
relevant background art.30
Bayer also argues that Skowronski does not teach the use of zeolites
and that its teachings cannot be combined with those of Horn to produce the
in~ention.~' These arguments are misdirected. The examiner does not rely
on Skowronski to teach the use of zeolites, so its deficiency in this regard is
hardly fatal to the rejection.32 Similarly, the rejection does not rest on a
physical corr~bination of the respective teachings of the references, but rather
on what the combined teachings of the references wo~lld mean to those in the
27 Skowronslu 12: 19-26.
28 Skowronski 12:40-42.
29 In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470,43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
30 Horn 2: 19-28.
3 1 Br. 5 ; Reply 3.
3 2 Nat'l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Rwy.,Ltd., 357 F.3d 13 19, 1336-37,
69 USPQ2d 164 1, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that different references
contribute distinct teachings in support of the overall analysis).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013