Appeal No. 1996-0708 Page 4
Application No. 08/241,888
support of their respective positions. As a consequence of
this review, we make the determinations which follow.
As evidence of obviousness of the claimed subject matter
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner relies on the combined
teachings of Touval, Breitenfellner and Sandler. The examiner
relies on Touval to demonstrate that dehydrating a mixture of
a hydrated sodium antimonate and a certain polymer during the
production of a flame proofing or fire retardant would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Answer,
page 5-8. The examiner then relies on Breitenfellner and
Sandler to establish that the use of the claimed specific
polymers and other ingredients in the process of Touval would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See
Answer, pages 6-8. However, as indicated by appellants at
page 4 of the Reply Brief, Touval does not teach dehydrating a
mixture of a hydrated sodium antimonate and at least one
polymer. Touval teaches drying the hydrated sodium antimonate
prior to incorporating it to a polymer formulation for the
production of a flame proofing or fire retardant in an
extruder. See, e.g., column 6, line 3, column 7, lines 50-53.
Although the examiner appears to argue that Touval inherently
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007