Appeal No. 95-4300
Application No. 08/165,565
In rebuttal, appellants initially argue that the Curry patent fails to teach that fillers and
pigments in general lower the heat release of compositions or reduce drippage.
(Brief, p. 3)
Appellants next note (Brief, page 4):
While Curry may teach the first three components of the present
invention, there is no teaching of components D, E and F. The teaching at
Column 14, line 7, cited by the Examiner does not relate to components D, E,
or F but rather is a general laundry list of known additives for known properties.
Curry has no appreciation for the surprising results achieved in the present
inventive combination of components A-F; there is no recognition of the synergy
exhibited when components E and F are present in the composition at the
claimed levels.
Appellants conclude (Brief, page 5):
Since neither Curry nor Mark '245 contain any teaching of a filler or
pigment effective to lower the heat release of the claimed composition, unless
such an unsubstantiated position, as has been taken by the Examiner, is
accepted as fact, there is no basis for this ground of rejection.
In addressing the Mark reference, appellants note (Brief, page 6):
Mark contains no teaching that the alkali metal salts and alkali earth metal salts
of substituted aromatic sulfonic acid and mixtures thereof would reduce
drippage in a blend of polymers containing fillers or pigments nor any inkling
that such a result would be possible.
Yet, the patent clearly intends the incorporation of the disclosed flame retardant as
well as other additives (See col. 4, lines 35-39) into this very type of composition. While the
examiner has added the Mark '366 reference to avoid the transparency question raised by
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007