Appeal No. 95-2719
Application No. 08/090,676
than wood. In the absence of any prior art teaching that
calcium tungstate was a known flame retardant for, at minimum,
polymeric materials, in general, there is no factual basis to
support the examiner's legal conclusion that it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use calcium
tungstate as a flame retardant for a vinylidene fluoride
polymer. At best, the evidence of record may suggest that it
might have been obvious to try calcium tungstate as a flame
retardant for a vinylidene fluoride polymer. Manifestly, this
is not the proper legal standard for determining obviousness
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Oka patent cited by the examiner makes no mention of
calcium tungstate. Regarding the examiner's application of
Oka, we note the examiner's statement that "Hannecart is
deemed the more relevant primary reference" (page 6 of
Answer).
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, it is our judgment
that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness for the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, the
examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims is reversed.
REVERSED
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007