Appeal No. 96-1790
Application No. 08/285,375
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Chung et al. (Chung) 4,677,148 Jun. 30,
1987
Hongo et al. (Hongo) 4,888,388 Dec. 19,
1989
Watanabe et al. (Watanabe) 5,266,618 Nov. 30,
1993
Green, “Flame Retarding Engineering Thermoplastics with
Brominated Phosphate Esters”, pp. 1-11, Proceedings of
Sixteenth International Conference on Fire Safety, (Jan. 14 to
18, 1991), Millbrae, Ca.
The Rejections
Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Chung in view of Green and Watanabe (Answer,
page 2). Claims 1-7 and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Hongo in view of Green and Watanabe
(Answer, page 3). Since we are deciding this appeal on the
basis of claim 1 alone (see the discussion above and 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(1995)), we will combine these rejections in our
opinion as Chung or Hongo in view of Green and Watanabe.
OPINION
Appellant does not dispute that both Chung and Hongo
disclose thermoplastic molding compositions containing
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007