Appeal 2007-3396
Application 1 11008,592
Differences between the prior art and claim I
Horn does not teach premixing the zeolites with the isocyanate
component. Horn's zeolite, if it is used at all, is added to an amorphous
microporous silica gel additive.36 in Horn's broadest teaching, the additive is
present when the polyisocyanate and polyol are rea~ted,'~ which would
include but does not require premixing the additive with the polyisocyanate.
Indeed, Horn teaches that it is "expedient" to mix the silica gel additive with
the high-molecular weight compound to improve processing properties and
stability of the polyol component.38
Bayer urges that Horn is different because it requires the use of an
amorphous microporous silica gel.39 his requirement is not a real
difference given the use of "comprising" in defining the (B) component of
claim 1. The (B) component is open to the inclusion of a silica gel.
Bayer also urges that Horn only teaches adding the zeolite to the
polyol form~lation.~~ We do not, and indeed cannot, read Horn so narrowly.
A reference cannot be limited to its examples or preferred embodiments, but
rather must be appreciated for all it says to those in the art.4' Horn teaches
adding zeolites to both the polyol and polyisocyanate components in the
production of closed-cell rigid foams, which Horn represents as relevant
background art. For integral-skin foams, Horn teaches that zeolites in silica
36 Horn 11:51-12:15.
3 7 Horn 2:56-3:12 & claim 1.
38 Horn 11:33-42.
39 Br. 4.
40 Br. 4; Reply 1-2.
41 In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1479,44 USPQ2d 1429, 1433 (Fed. Cir.
1997); ArthroCare Corp. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 406 F.3d 1365, 1372,
74 USPQ2d 1749, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013