Appeal No. 95-2190
Application 07/777,034
withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention. Accordingly, our consideration is directed
to the rejection of claims 1 and 3-11 only.
Claims 1 and 3-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bellamy
(Patent No. 3,897,583 granted July 29, 1975) in view of Coran et al. (Patent No. 4,433,114 granted
February 21, 1984) and further in view of either Wideman et al. (Patent No. 5,049,618 granted
September, 17, 1991) or Benko et al. (Patent No. 4,605,696 granted August 12, 1986). We will not
sustain this rejection because we agree with appellants that the prior art relied upon does not disclose
or suggest the cobalt salt of the hydroxy-aryl substituted bis-maleamic acid as set forth in appellants’
claims.
According to the examiner, Bellamy teaches “‘a cobalt salt of an aliphatic or alicyclic
carboxylic acid having 6-30 carbon atoms’ ... in a ‘conjugated diolefin polymer rubber’.” The
examiner states that “Appellant’s [sic, Appellants’] aryl substituted maleamic acid is suggested
generally” (answer, p. 3, emphasis ours). On this record, the examiner has not specifically identified
where in Bellamy’s disclosure the patentee “suggested generally” appellants’ cobalt salt of a hydroxy-
aryl substituted maleamic acid. Nor has the examiner provided a reasoned analysis of the reference
as to why the reference would have “suggested generally” to a person having ordinary skill in the art
appellants’ bis-maleamic acid.
The examiner relies on Coran as disclosing vulcanized rubber compositions containing a
hydroxy-aryl substituted maleamic acid or its derivatives. From the combined teachings of Bellamy
and Coran , the examiner concludes that “it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007