Ex Parte Gohr et al - Page 4

               Appeal 2007-0951                                                                             
               Application 10/740,074                                                                       

               7) Rosenquist discloses forming molten polycarbonate and then adding the                     
                   perfluoroalkane sulfonate and cyclic siloxane either sequentially or in                  
                   combination (col. 2, l. 62-col. 3, l. 1).                                                
                                   ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS                                                 
                      The Examiner found that it would have been obvious to one of                          
               ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to masterbatch the                    
               polycarbonate and salts of Umeda for optimum dispersion of the flame                         
               retardants and to use the siloxanes of the secondary references to improve                   
               flame–retardance and eliminate brittleness upon molding (Answer 4).                          
                      Appellants attempt to refute the Examiner’s conclusion of                             
               obviousness on the basis that the Examiner has not established the requisite                 
               motivation to combine the applied prior art in the manner claimed.  We do                    
               not find Appellants’ arguments and evidence persuasive for the reasons                       
               discussed below.                                                                             
                      Appellants argue that the applied prior art fails to disclose                         
               manufacturing a pelletized concentrate (Br. 8-9).2  However, claim 24 is not                 
               limited to a pelletized concentrate.  Appellants have not presented                          
               convincing arguments or evidence which establishes that the claimed step of                  
               blending a salt with a first polycarbonate to form a concentrate should be                   
               narrowly construed as limited to a pelletized concentrate, or a concentrate                  
               formed by extrusion.  Therefore, claim 24 cannot distinguish over the prior                  
               art methods on this basis.                                                                   

                                                                                                           
               2  Appellants have not provided separate arguments for the claims on appeal.                 
               Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have elected to decide this                     
               appeal on the basis of independent claim 24.                                                 
                                                     4                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013