Appeal No. 96-0644
Application No. 08/056,721
(e) curing a mixture of said fiber and
uncured rubber by conventional means to
form high density crosslink sites
in said rubber in the proximity of
said fibers.
6. An elastomeric matrix comprising an elastomeric
material having therein sites of high density crosslinking of
said elastomer which correspond to the presence of textile
fibers which have been surface treated with cure accelerator,
wherein the highest degree of crosslinking of said elastomer
occurs in the proximity of said fiber, and in which said
elastomeric material is crosslinked to said textile fibers
through said cure accelerator.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Boustany et al. (Boustany) 3,836,412 Sept. 17,
1974
Edwards et al. (Edwards) 4,659,754 Apr. 21,
1987
Claims 1-6 and 9-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Edwards in view of Boustany (answer, page
3). We reverse this rejection for reasons which follow.2
OPINION
2It should be noted that claims 11 and 12 improperly
depend upon now cancelled claim 7. Upon the return of this
application to the examiner, the improper dependency of claims
11 and 12 should be corrected. It is also noted that the
formulas in claim 1, part (c), and claim 12 are incorrect as
recited in the Appendix to appellants’ brief. However, this
error is harmless as we base our decision on the claims of
record in this application.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007