Appeal 2007-3686
Application 10/965,349
However, the claimed foam-forming reaction mixtures are not limited to
those capable of forming rigid polyurethane foams having such k-factor. In
re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“Many of appellant’s arguments
fail from the outset because, as the solicitor has pointed out, they are not
based on limitations appearing in the claims.”). We shall not read such
limitation of the Specification into claim 8. McCarty v. Lehigh Valley R.
Co., 160 U.S. 110, 116 (1895) (“[I]f we once begin to include elements not
mentioned in the claim, in order to limit such claim . . . ., we should never
know where to stop . . . .”); In re Priest, 582F.2d 33, 37 (CCPA 1978), citing
In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1405 (CCPA 1969) (“We have consistently
held that no ’applicant should have limitations of the specifications read into
a claim where no express statement of the limitation is included in the
claim.’”)
Even were we to read such limitation into claim 8, our conclusion
would not be altered. We find that Doerge teaches rigid polyurethane or
polyisocyanurate foams produced from a reaction mixture comprising an
organic isocyanate, an amine-based polyether polyol corresponding to the
claimed isocyanate-reactive compound, and a blowing agent comprising,
inter alia, at least one hydrogen-containing fluorocarbon and water (col. 2, ll.
47-66). We find that Doerge teaches HFC-245fa is the most preferred
hydrogen-containing fluorocarbon (col. 4, ll. 33-47, and cols. 5 and 6, Table
1). We find that Doerge teaches (col. 4, ll. 33-56) that:
The HFC blowing agent….HFC-245fa is preferred. The
blowing agent is generally included in the foam-forming
mixture in an amount of from 3 to about 20% by weight, based
on the total foam formulation, preferably from about 5 to about
16% by weight.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013