Appeal 2007-3686
Application 10/965,349
separate patentability of any specific claims in their opening Brief pursuant
to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See Brief in its entirety.
The dispositive question is, therefore, whether Doerge teaches each
and every claim limitation recited in claim 8 within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 102? On this record, we answer this question in the affirmative.
As is apparent from Table 1, Example 1, at cols. 5 and 6, of Doerge,
its exemplified foam-forming reaction mixture contains 121.1 pbw of a
polyisocyanate corresponding to the claimed organic isocyanate, 78.64 pbw
of a polyol corresponding to the claimed isocyanate-reactive compound,
0.94 pbw of a catalyst, 2.80 pbw of a surfactant, 2.60 pbw of water, 1.00
pbw of carbon dioxide, and 14.55 pbw of HFC-245fa. We find that the
amounts of water and HFC-245fa employed in this exemplified foam-
forming reaction mixture are well within the claimed percentages of water
and HFC-245fa. Since the catalyst, surfactant and carbon dioxide present in
Doerge’s exemplified foam-forming reaction mixture are not excluded by
claim 82, we concur with the Examiner that Doerge renders the subject
matter defined by claims 1 through 9 anticipated within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 102.
In reaching this determination, we note the Appellants’ arguments
directed to an insulation property defined by a k-factor of less than or equal
to about 0.135 BTU in/hr.ft2 oF. at 75oF. (Br. 6-8 and Reply Br. 3).
2 In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686 (CCPA 1981) (“As long as one of the
monomers in the reaction is propylene, any other monomer may be present,
because the term ‘comprises’ permits the inclusion of other steps, elements,
or materials.”)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013