Appeal No. 95-0244
Application 08/035,832
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14 and 16-22 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Reske. We have
carefully considered the entire record, including appellant's
position as set forth in his brief and the examiner's position
as set forth in the answer, and we have decided that we will
affirm the examiner's rejection. Appealed claim 1 is limited
to a composition consisting of a polymeric acetal and 1 to 20%
zinc oxide. As noted by the examiner, Reske discloses a
molding composition which consists essentially of a
polyoxymethylene (polymeric acetal), a polyurethane and a
filler (column 1, lines 5-7 and 36-40). As set forth in
appealed claim 7, the claimed polymeric acetal may be an
"oxymethylene homopolymer" which is equivalent to Reske's
polyoxymethylene. Reske discloses that a disadvantage of the
polyoxymethylene is "a low impact strength" (column 1, lines
11-14). The disadvantage is overcome by including the
polyurethane and filler. Accordingly, as noted
by the examiner, the compatible polyurethane is an "impact
modifier." Reske discloses further that the filler may be
zinc oxide (column 6, lines 22-28), and in claim 8 Reske
specifically claims a composition wherein the filler is zinc
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007