Appeal No. 95-2190
Application 07/777,034
skill in the art to specify the carboxylic acid in the cobalt salt taught by Bellamy with the specific
hydroxy aryl maleamic acid taught by both [?] Coran to obtain improved filler interaction in a
vulcanized rubber compositions [sic, composition] as disclosed in Coran” (answer, p. 4; bold type in
the original). The examiner’s statement of the rejection lacks support for the conclusion of prima
facie obviousness. The statement lacks a reasoned scientific analysis of the prior art to explain why
it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute Coran’s maleamic compounds for
the cobalt salts taught by Bellamy and to explain how and why one skilled in the art would have been
led to convert any one of Coran’s maleamic compounds to a cobalt salt of a hydroxy-aryl substituted
bis-maleamic acid. While we recognize that Coran does disclose bis-maleamic acids (col. 4, lines 17-
21), the reference does not disclose or suggest cobalt salts of hydroxy-aryl substituted bis-maleamic
acid.
As for the teachings of Wideman and Benko, we do not find that these references make up
for the deficiencies in the combined teachings of Bellamy and Coran. Benko does not disclose or
suggest the use of maleamic acid in a rubber composition, let alone cobalt salts thereof. Wideman
does teach a mixture of a vulcanized rubber and a hydroxy-aryl substituted monomaleimide.
However, we do not find, and the examiner has not explained how, Widemans’ monomaleimide
compound is chemically structurally similar to a cobalt salt of hydroxy-aryl substituted maleamic acid.
We simply do not find that the examiner, on this record, has established a prima facie
obviousness of the claimed invention over the combined teachings of the the prior art relied upon in
the rejection. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 1 and 3-11 is reversed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007