Appeal 2007-3396
Application 1 11008,592
polyol component rather than necessary. In either case, adding the
ingredient to the polyol component may provide advantages, but those of
skill in the art would not understand either reference to teach away from the
alternative of adding the ingredient to the polyisocyanate component.
Bayer also argues that those in the art would not have expected the
use of zeolites in the polyisocyanate component to result in better Shore D
hardness values for the resulting integral-skin foam.4s The argument is
misdirected because the rationale underlying the claimed invention need not
be the same as the rationale in the prior art.49 Horn notes at least two
reasons to use zeolites: flame and heat resistanceS0 and for some customized
form~lations.~' If the use of zeolites provides other lagniappes, so much the
better.
Objective evidence of secondary considerations
The only evidence Bayer provides of secondary considerations is in
the specification. Bayer says the use of inorganic zeolites in the isocyanate
component provides surprisingly good results relative to European published
Application 0 3 19 866 A2. Bayer also provides three comparative examples
said to show the improvement.
We must give weight to evidence of secondary considerations in the
specification if the specification states that the results were not expected and
48 Br. 7.
49 In re Dillon, 9 19 F.2d 688,692-94, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 190 1-02 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (en banc).
Horn 2: 19-28.
" Horn 1 1 :45-50.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013