Appeal No. 2001-0772
Application No. 09/052,429
Manifestly, that knowledge cannot come from the applicant’s invention itself. Diversitech Corp. v.
Century Steps, Inc., 850 F.2d 675, 678-79, 7 USPQ2d 1315, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Geiger,
815 F.2d 686, 688, 2 USPQ2d 1276, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774
F.2d 1132, 1143, 227 USPQ 543, 551 (Fed. Cir. 1985). On this record, the examiner has failed to
offer any evidence or facts found in the prior art which would have led one of ordinary skill in the
art to modify the method of Unger with a melter as proposed.
The examiner appears to acknowledge that the teachings of Rubber Technology alone
suggest a process for melting and mixing natural rubber and carbon black in an internal mixer. See
Answer, p. 7. Specifically, Rubber Technology is directed to a process for preparing a natural
rubber composition at a temperature between 110°C and 125°C using a Banbury internal mixer.
The process comprises the steps of adding natural rubber to the mixer (see mixing step 2),
introducing one-half the carbon black, mixing the carbon black and the natural rubber for 1.5
minutes (see mixing step 5), adding the remainder of the carbon black to the mixture of carbon
black and natural rubber from mixing step 5, and mixing that mixture of carbon black and natural
rubber for 1.5 minutes (see mixing step 6). According to the natural rubber recipe disclosed, the
natural rubber to carbon black ratio used is 2:1.
Appellant recognizes that the process disclosed in Rubber Technology is a multipass
process. However, appellant argues that natural rubber is not melted in the disclosed process. See
Reply Brief, p. 2. Assuming arguendo, that rubber is melted in the process of Rubber Technology,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007