Appeal No. 95-4300
Application No. 08/165,565
35 U.S.C. § 103, since each rejection over Curry and the individual Mark patents alone is
subsumed by the comprehensive rejection over the combination of Curry, Mark, Lupinski
and Kelly. With regard to the newly cited Mark ('366) patent, the examiner states (Answer,
page 8); "The new rejection based on Curry in view of Mark '366 avoids the transparency
issue." The examiner has relied on both of the Mark patents for the same disclosure;
compare page 3 and page 5 of the Answer. We are not persuaded that the question of
the non-opaque nature of the composition of Mark '245 is a relevant factor. The claims
before us contain no limitation relating to the opaque or non-opaque nature of the claimed
composition. We therefore address our remarks only to Mark '245 as representative of
both patents.
The rejection of Claims 1-13 and 16-17:
In describing his reliance on Curry, the examiner states (Answer, page 3):
Curry discloses blends of brominated PC, polyester-carbonate and silicone-
polyimide. Fillers, pigments and flame retardants (col. 14, line 7) may be
added.
The examiner acknowledges (Answer, page 3) that Curry does not name any
particular flame retardants, but cites Mark '245, and subsequently Mark '366, as teaching
flame retardants such as sodium trichlorobenzene sulfonate as being useful in
polycarbonate, brominated PC and polyester-carbonate compositions.
In describing the disclosure of Lupinski and Kelly the examiner states (Answer,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007