Appeal No. 2006-0977
Application 10/250,605
requiring, among other things, a cyclopentadiene compound” (page 5
of brief, second paragraph). However, due to the “comprising”
language of the appealed claims, the examiner has accurately noted
that “[t]he claims do not preclude the presence of other additives
such as the cyclopentadienyl metal compound of Japanese ‘349 which
functions as a flame retardant and hardening accelerator (page 5,
paragraph 10, lines 1-3)” (page 9 of answer, last paragraph).
The examiner also properly notes that appellants do not
separately address the separate rejection of claims 1, 3-5 and 7-9
under § 103 over Japanese ‘349 in view of Japanese ‘702 and Japanese
‘306. (See page 6 of appellants’ brief, last paragraph).
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well-
stated by the examiner, it is our judgment that the evidence of
obviousness presented by the examiner outweighs the evidence of non-
obviousness proffered by appellants. Accordingly, the examiner’s
decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007