Appeal 2007-3918
Application 10/203,926
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 12, and 14 based on Mitsuboshi and Brennenstuhl.
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter defined by claims 1,
3, 6, 9, 11, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner has relied on the
combined disclosures of Mitsuboshi and Brennenstuhl.4 We find that
Mitsuboshi teaches mixing, inter alia, rubbers, such as natural rubber and
polybutadiene rubber, expanded microspheres (microcapsule expanded by
heat-treatment at 120 to 200șC), a foaming agent, and a vulcanizing agent
and vulcanizing the mixture to form a foam having a volume fraction of
expanded microspheres in the range of 5 to 80% (¶¶ [0012] to [0018]). As
indicated supra, the Appellants have acknowledged that commercially
available expandable microspheres are expanded to the claimed diameter
upon being subject to the temperature taught by Mitsuboshi. Moreover, as
explained by Brennenstuhl and the Specification, it is conventional to
expand commercially available expandable microspheres to obtain expanded
microspheres having the claimed diameter. Thus, we concur with the
Examiner that Mitsuboshi, as explained by Brennenstuhl and the Appellants,
would have taught or suggested the claimed foam rubber having the claimed
volume fraction and diameter of the expanded microspheres within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103,
4 The Appellants have stated that “[t]he rejection of these claims may be
treated as two groups (i.e., a first group consisting of claims 1, 3, 6, and 11-
12, and a second group consisting of claims 9 and 14).” See Br. 20.
Therefore, for purposes of this rejection, we focus our discussion on
independent claims 1 and 14 only pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2004).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013