Appeal No. 2001-0218 5
Application No. 09/184,993
In the sole rejection of the claimed subject matter, the examiner having incorporated
the rejection present in the Office action mailed March 1, 1999, Paper No. 3, there are
no findings made by the examiner, with respect to the presence of any limitations present
in the references of record which suggest or teach how the limitations directed to the melt
volume rating (MVR) are met by the references of record.
In the aforesaid rejection, the examiner states that, “the applied references, which
span a period exceeding 16 years, relate, it is standard practice to utilize an organic
phosphite antioxidant in PC formulations which also contain a mold release agent.
Moreover[,] this practice is irrespective of either the spatial branching or non-branching
configuration of the organic molecule portions of the polycarbonate resin or the presence
or absence of other additives including flame retardants, in as much as their roles are
different.” Id. The examiner thereafter proceeds to discuss the “attribtuion [sic,
attribution] of unexpected melt viscosity properties in a flame retardant PC composition.”
Id. These melt viscosity properties expressed in the claimed subject matter define the PC
resin as one, “having an MVR above 11 cm3/10 minutes, wherein MVR is measured at
300oC and 2.16 kg.” The aforesaid limitation is an express limitation of the claimed
subject matter and the burden is on the examiner to show that the evidence relied upon by
the examiner teach or suggest a polycarbonate (PC) having the requisite melt viscosity
property required by the claimed subject matter. This burden has not been met.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007