Appeal 2007-3686
Application 10/965,349
1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“The motivation need not be found in the
references sought to be combined, but may be found in any number of
sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the
nature of the problem itself.”); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA
1969) (“Having established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner
could then properly rely, as put forth by the solicitor, on a conclusion of
obviousness ‘from common knowledge and common sense of the person of
ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular
reference.’”).
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter defined by claims 1
through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner has relied on the disclosure
of Lund. 3 The Examiner has found, and the Appellants have not disputed,
that Lund teaches a rigid polyurethane foam-producing reaction mixture
comprising an organic polyisocyanate, a polyol corresponding to the claimed
isocyanate-reactive compound and a blowing agent containing azeotrope-
like compositions consisting of HFC245fa and 141b and optionally up to 3%
by weight water. (Compare Answer 5, with Br., Reply Br. and
Supplemental Br. in their entirety; see also Lund, col. 1, ll. 5-21, col. 2, ll.
10-25, col. 3, l. 43 to col. 4, l. 3, and col. 5, ll. 7-10.) Moreover,
notwithstanding the Appellants’ arguments to the contrary at page 9 of the
Brief, the claims on appeal do not preclude the presence of HCFC 141b as
part of the claimed blowing agents. Baxter, 656 F.2d at 686, 210 USPQ at
3 The Appellants have not supplied any substantive arguments for the
separate patentability of any specific claims. See Br. in its entirety.
Therefore, for purposes of this rejection, we select claim 8 as representative
of all of the claims on appeal and decide the propriety of the Examiner’s
rejections based on this claim alone pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013