Appeal 2007-0951
Application 10/740,074
by the teachings of the references. The issue before us is: Has the Examiner
properly established a motivation to combine the references in the manner
claimed and thereby established a prima facie case of obviousness within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C § 103(a)?
For the reasons discussed below, we answer this question in the
affirmative. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-9 and 21-29.
RELEVANT FINDINGS OF FACT
1) Ogoe ‘280 discloses preparation of a carbonate polymer composition. A
master batch is initially prepared by adding an alkali metal salt to ground
polycarbonate (col. 18, l. 65 - col. 19, l. 3). The master batch is then
combined with a polycarbonate resin (col. 19, ll. 6-10).
2) Ogoe ‘280 teaches that the carbonate polymer compositions may contain
other additives including silicones (col. 12, ll. 19 and 21).
3) Umeda discloses a flame retardative composition comprising a
polycarbonate resin, an alkali or alkaline-earth metal salt of a
perfluoroalkanesulfonic acid and an organopolysiloxane (see Abstract).
4) Mark discloses a polycarbonate composition comprising an aromatic
carbonate polymer and a cyclic siloxane plasticizer (see Abstract).
5) According to Mark, the addition of the cyclic siloxane provides the
advantage of reducing melt viscosity without causing degradation or an
embrittling effect on the polycarbonate (col. 1, ll. 45-51).
6) Rosenquist discloses a fire-retardant composition comprising a
polycarbonate, a fire-retardant component containing a perfluorobutane
sulfonate and a cyclic siloxane (see Abstract).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013