Appeal No. 2006-2484 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/837,337
affirm the examiner’s rejection of the appealed claims for
substantially the reasons set forth in the answer. We add the
following for emphasis.
Claims 1-27
Appellants argue claims 1-27 together with the exception
that an argument with respect to non-analogous art respecting the
Smith patent is treated separately as a separate argument as to
claim 24 to the extent that claim is separately argued in the
brief (page 4). Thus, we select claim 1 as representative of
rejected claims 1-27 with the exception that we will consider
claim 24 separately as to the application of Smith thereto to the
extent separately argued in the briefs.
Appellants do not dispute the examiner’s determination that
each of Smith and DeMoss discloses or suggests a sealing
composition including at least one sulfur-containing polymer, a
curing agent and a filler that can be conductive, as called for
in representative claim 1.
Like appellants, DeMoss discloses sealant and potting
formulations including, inter alia, sulfur-containing polymers,
such a polythioethers, fillers, and one or more curing agents.2
2
2 Appellants (paragraph bridging pages 7 and 8 of their
specification) disclose that polythioethers, such as disclosed by
DeMoss (U.S. Patent No. 6,372,849) are useful in appellants’
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007