Appeal No. 95-1568
Application 08/124,747
5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Carella v. Starlight Archery, 804 F.2d 135,
139, 231 USPQ 644, 647 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins &
Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 291, 227 USPQ 657, 662 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re
Rinehart, supra.
We cannot agree with the examiner’s initial premise that the Evans ‘811
heat cured HMW polymer, as described by formula (III), satisfies components (A), (B)
and (C) of the instant claims. The claims recite a five component curable mixture
containing two specific copolymer gums in combination with a specific block copolymer
which are not suggested by the examiner’s strained interpretation of the Evans ’811
HMW heat cured polymer. Further, we find no suggestion in Evans ‘811 and the
examiner has pointed to none, to then take the HMW heat cured polymer and add silica
and a curing agent.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007