Appeal No. 95-4300
Application No. 08/165,565
appellants, we read the patents as both providing the same suggestion to the use of the
sulfonic acid salts as flame retardants in the type of composition claimed.
In discussing Lupinski, appellants argue (Brief, page 10) "Lupinski does not teach that
'treated carbon black, clay and titanium dioxide lower heat release of polycarbonate.'" As to
Kelly, appellants acknowledge that the reference discloses numerous examples containing
titanium dioxide (Brief, page 11), yet argues (Brief, par.bridging pages 11 and 12) "Kelly . . .
would not lead the skilled artisan to use this filler in a different polymer system employing
different additives to single out titanium dioxide as a (sic) additive to give a composition with
reduced heat release and reduced drippage."
While we find ourselves in agreement with the appellant that the Mark references,
Lupinski and Kelly do not clearly describe the addition of ingredients taught by each as likely
to result in a lower heat release rate or reduce drippage, we conclude that the examiner has
established that it would have been within the purview of those skilled in this art, at the time of
the invention, to incorporate the designated ingredients into a polycarbonate composition to
serve as flame retardants, fillers and pigments.
We do not find appellant's arguments persuasive of error as to the examiner's prima
facie case of obviousness. That appellants may advocate the use of these
ingredients in a polycarbonate composition for a different reason, does not distract from the
prima facie case established by the examiner. Although the motivation to combine here
differs from that of the applicants, the motivation in the prior art to combine the references
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007