Appeal 2007-3686
Application 10/965,349
Water is also included in the reaction mixtures of the
present invention. As used herein, water in an amount of up to
about 5.0%, preferably from about 0.1% to about 3.0%, most
preferably from about 0.2 to about 2.0%, based on the total
foam formulation is included in the reaction mixture.
We find that Doerge teaches that the resulting rigid “foams generally have k-
factors ranging from about 0.120 BTU-in./hr.ft2 oF. to 0.160 BTU-in./hr.ft2
oF. at 75oF” (col. 2, ll. 63-65). As there is a significant overlap between
Doerge’s generic ranges and the claimed ranges of HFC-245fa, water, and k-
factor, 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. See Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical, Corp., 432 F.3d 1368,
1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346-
48 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Ornitz, 351 F.2d 1013, 1016 (CCPA 1965).
OBVIOUSNESS
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations (e.g.,
unexpected results). Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1,
17-18 (1966). “[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a claim would
be obvious] need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific
subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41 (2007)
quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also DyStar
Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013